House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we start today’s business, I want to say something about the exceptional heat. While the Chamber is kept at a consistently comfortable temperature, I accept that that is not the case in all offices and that Members have to move around the estate. Therefore, while the heat remains at this exceptional level and for the remainder of this week, I am content for Members not to wear jackets or ties in the Chamber, if they so choose. When the House returns in the autumn, I will expect Members to revert to wearing a jacket. The Deputy Speakers and I will strongly encourage male Members to wear ties when speaking in the Chamber—or you might find it harder to get called.
I can now announce the arrangements for the election of a new Chair of the Science and Technology Committee. Nominations are open and will close at 12 noon on Tuesday 13 September. Nomination forms are available from the Vote Office, the Table Office and the Public Bill Office. Following the House’s decision of 16 January 2020, only Conservative party Members may be candidates. If there is more than one candidate, the ballot will take place on Wednesday 14 September from 11 am to 2.30 pm in the Aye Lobby. A briefing note with more information about the election will be made available in the Vote Office.
Finally, before we come to Defence questions, I want to wish a very happy 80th birthday to Peter Hipkins. Peter has worked in the House since 1973 and is a service delivery co-ordinator in the In-House Services and Estates Team. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in wishing Peter a very happy birthday and thanking him for 49 years of service to the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I am sorry that I did not get the memo on dress and attire earlier, Mr Speaker. What next? Flip-flops in the House?
Mr Wallace
Not in the Defence team, Mr Speaker. We shall leave that to others.
The Ministry of Defence’s sustained investment in industries across the UK supports over 200,000 jobs. Continued high and focused defence spending, supported by the changes we are making as part of the defence and security industrial strategy, will contribute to further economic growth and prosperity across the Union.
Henry Smith
It is good to see that you are in fine, typical wit despite the heat, Mr Speaker.
As my right hon. Friend said, the UK defence sector is vital for jobs, the defence of this country and our allies, such as the Ukrainians, against Russian aggression. I am very proud of the contribution of Thales, which is located in my constituency. What is his Department doing to encourage defence contractors such as Thales to expand to meet this country’s increasing defence needs?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend asks an important question. Last week, I met the Defence Suppliers Forum, which includes Thales. We work closely together not only to indicate potential investments by defence in what we would need, but to make sure that we both meet our future requirements. Thales UK is one of Britain’s biggest and most advanced defence companies. Its NLAW—next generation light anti-tank weapon—systems are being used in Ukraine. I congratulate him on posing a question on Thales.
Jacob Young
Does my right hon. Friend agree that procurement rules in the UK should recognise the socioeconomic benefit of investment as well as value for money in defence spending? To that end, will his Department ensure that more defence contracts are given to businesses based in Britain, such as our fantastic manufacturers in Teesside?
Mr Wallace
Yes, the defence industrial strategy embraces the social value model from the Treasury in competitive procurement and ensures that tackling economic inequality and equal opportunity are factors that are taken into consideration in procurement. Under my direction and that of the Minister for Defence Procurement, the Ministry of Defence always has regard for onshore sovereign capability and industrial skills.
David Duguid
Scottish businesses receive more investment than average across the UK from defence procurement, so how will my right hon. Friend continue to encourage the building of the skills that we need to help Scottish businesses to continue doing their bit in defence of our United Kingdom?
Mr Wallace
Our investment in Scotland was £1.99 billion last year, on projects such as the Type 26 in Govan, the Type 31 in Rosyth, airborne radars and advanced laser munitions in Edinburgh, which all help to sustain the skills base. It is incredibly important that the Scottish Government and the UK Government work with the further education colleges and the manufacturers to make sure that they invest in the skills that we so vitally need.
Nicola Richards
The Boxer programme in Telford has a positive effect throughout the midlands, with over 60% of its value flowing into UK supply chains. Can my right hon. Friend confirm how certain we can be of future jobs and investment from defence land equipment?
Mr Wallace
Yes, the fact that the Army will invest £41.3 billion in new capabilities over the next decade—including the likes of Boxer, Challenger 3 and two new major programmes that will develop in the near future, such as deep fires—will increase production and the employment base, which is also why it is so important that we invest in the skills at the same time. That will put UK land manufacturing back at the forefront of the international defence sector. It is a part of the sector that has lagged behind air and sea for too long.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
May I make it simple for the Secretary of State? Defence jobs depend on orders, principally from his Department, and even export orders depend on British validation. He referred earlier to his support for the British defence industry, so why will he not now commit to ordering the fleet solid support ships to be built in British yards?
Mr Wallace
They will certainly be integrated in British yards, and a significant proportion will be built there. Let us have a look at what the bidders say; I have not yet seen the bids. As the right hon. Gentleman absolutely points out, British defence is dependent on British manufacturing, but British manufacturing is dependent on exports. If we are going to export our defence, as with Typhoon aircraft, Boxer and many of our exports, we often have to collaborate with international partners, because if we close the door on them, they are not going to buy British kit.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Defence Secretary has just said that social value will be taken into consideration when awarding contracts. I have asked numerous parliamentary questions of the Department to try to quantify that; I have had no answer. I have asked the National Audit Office this question; it does not seem to know what is being used by the Department. Could the Defence Secretary clarify exactly what social value means, in quantifiable terms, when awarding contracts? It was clearly laid out in the excellent report that the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) did a few years ago.
Mr Wallace
In strategy documents such as the national shipbuilding strategy, we pledged a minimum 20% weighting for social value with naval ships. Social value is one of the weightings that we put on the contract. All contracts are obviously different from what we are seeking to buy, but within the weighting for social value, on which 20% of the total award is based, we can consider inequalities or the economic factors that I referred to earlier. I make sure that those factors are in there, and that they are adhered to. It is incredibly important.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hostelries of east Fife benefit hugely from having Leuchars in east Fife. Similarly, when Joint Warrior comes to the north-west of my constituency, brisk trade is done. Does the Secretary of State accept that there are spin-off jobs that benefit from MOD expenditure the length and breadth of the UK?
Mr Wallace
Yes. I am delighted that military activity in the north-west and the east of Scotland brings in not just investment and industry—the £1.99 billion that I have talked about—but economic engagement with the community, which helps to sustain jobs, often in low season rather than the tourist season. It is Britain’s armed forces and British defence that help to keep us all safe, from the very tip of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency right down to the south-west.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
But the defence jobs that the Defence Secretary is cutting are those of our armed forces personnel. There are 40,000 less than when Labour left office, and right now we are cutting another 10,000 jobs. At a time when there is greater global instability, we could be utilising these vital armed forces personnel to de-escalate risk using soft power, which our armed forces are so good at. Could the Defence Secretary tell the House whether this determination is driven by him, by the former Chancellor or by the professional leadership of our armed forces?
Mr Wallace
It is currently driven by an estimation of threat. As I have said a number of times at the Dispatch Box, if the threat changes, so must we. I do not call an increase of £24 billion in spending on defence a cut, in anybody’s book. However, what I do believe is that as the threat changes, so must we. We will continue to review that and, if the threat changes, I will be back.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
May I congratulate the Defence Secretary and his team on ensuring that there has been continuity in defence while the rest of the Conservative Government have collapsed in chaos? Let me also say, lest this prove to be their last session of oral questions in their current jobs, that whatever our other disagreements, the Secretary of State’s cross-party working on Ukraine has helped to ensure that the UK has strong, unified support for the Ukrainians.
The right hon. Gentleman has been Defence Secretary since the Prime Minister, nearly two years ago, boosted defence spending and boasted that that would create 10,000 jobs every year. Only 800 new defence jobs have been created since then. Why the failure?
Mr Wallace
I should be happy for the right hon. Gentleman to show me that 800 figure, but, first and foremost, we have started to invest that £43.1 billion, or £41.3 billion, in the land scheme, a huge amount of which will be spent on Boxer and Challenger 3. That will generate an enormous number of jobs. Obviously, replenishing some of our ammunition stocks, many of which are made up and down the United Kingdom, will result in more jobs, and indeed the increased skills base for our work on the Dreadnought submarine.
Let me thank the right hon. Gentleman—my opposite number on the Front Bench—and, indeed, the whole House for the cross-party support on Ukraine. I also thank my team, my hon. Friends the Members for Wells (James Heappey), for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) and for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb), Baroness Goldie, and my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy). It is not often that a team stick together in Parliament or indeed in Government and, whatever happens over the next few months, it has been a privilege for me to work with all of them.
We will continue to invest in the jobs—over 200,000. No doubt the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) will be attending Farnborough air show this week; it is an incredibly important event to showcase British industry.
John Healey
The answer is simple: direct British defence contracts first to British firms and British jobs, starting with the Navy’s new support ships.
The right hon. Gentleman has been Defence Secretary since the Prime Minister also pledged, at the last election:
“We will not be cutting our armed services in any form.”
However, he then launched plans to cut the British Army by a further 10,000 troops. He uses the words “when the threats change”. With Ukraine, the threats that we face are greater and our obligations to NATO are greater, so will he now do what Labour has been urging the Government to do for more than a year, and rethink these cuts in the strength of the British Army?
Mr Wallace
As I have also said over the year to those on the Labour Front Bench, we have already reduced the original cut by 500 so that the numbers are increased from 72,500 to 73,000. As for the changing threats, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the defence command paper was written and delivered before the actual Russian invasion of Ukraine. I have said continually that we will review it, and we will obviously review the threat as it changes. That review of the threat is ongoing, which is why Defence Intelligence gives regular briefings, and next year, or the year after, is the Department’s spending moment.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
Underpinned by a ringfenced £6.6 billion commitment to defence research and development, we are determined to innovate effectively and at scale. In addition to the well-established Defence and Security Accelerator programme this summer, we are launching the Defence Technology Exploitation programme, geared to supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and their innovative role in defence.
Bob Blackman
As my hon. Friend will know, we face a continued and substantial increase in attacks from cyber-technology. It is important to note that that is happening every single day that our defences are being probed. What further efforts will my hon. Friend make to ensure that our defences are secure and those attacks are rebuffed?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend is right about that threat, and he is right to suggest that we need to be absolutely on our toes in dealing with it. The Department continuously integrates leading-edge innovative cyber-technologies into military operations, including intelligence agents for autonomous resilience cyber-defence and cyber-deception technologies, through the National Cyber Deception Laboratory. In doing so, we make active use of DASA funding and the excellent expertise that we have in the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory.
Paul Howell
As we see in the tragedy that is happening to Ukraine, the normal boundaries of warfare are being ignored, with increasing risks of the employment of biological or viral warfare strategies. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to be at the forefront of innovation and research to deliver the best possible platforms to defend against these abhorrent strategies, and that the work that companies such as Kromek in Sedgefield are doing in collaboration with others deserves full support and indeed acceleration?
Jeremy Quin
I am familiar with Kromek and its capabilities, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is often SMEs that produce the most brilliant ideas, often working with excellent British universities. DASA finds and supports new ideas within defence, and I am delighted that SMEs make up some two thirds of the projects that DASA supports. Funding is also available for specialist innovative projects through Defence Science and Technology.
Andrew Jones
Building on the comments about SMEs, the conflict in Ukraine has shown the benefits of technical innovation, particularly in the area of drones, and we have great SMEs in this country that are keen to help, so could my hon. Friend explain a bit more about how he is engaging with that sector?
Jeremy Quin
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, not least because it gives me the opportunity to say how keen the entire defence sector is to support our friends in Ukraine in every way we can. We recently completed the application phase of our Ukrainian innovation fund competition, and no fewer than 295 proposals designed to deliver capability to our friends in the Ukraine in the very short term were submitted from 205 different companies. Many are being closely scrutinised, including 17 that have been shortlisted for immediate attention, and I am proud to say that the majority of contributors were SMEs.
Chris Clarkson
As we have seen from recent events in Ukraine, air combat is incredibly important to maintaining our national security and also, as has been mentioned, to maintaining our economic security-supporting businesses, such as Middleton-based MSM in my constituency. Can my hon. Friend tell me what is being done to ensure that the RAF retains its cutting-edge capabilities?
Jeremy Quin
A brilliantly topical question, if I may say so, with Farnborough taking place this very week. I was delighted to announce last Friday at the Royal International Air Tattoo our £2.3 billion investment in ECRS mark 2 radar. This British-made world-leading electronic warfare capability will transform our combat air. It is just one example of how we will continue to invest in combat air as we develop our next generation future combat air system programme. We are currently investing some £2 billion into FCAS, with industry and international partners likewise investing in what will be an extraordinary combat capability.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
A few moments ago, the Defence Secretary mentioned Typhoon and the advantages of international co-operation. Is this Government, post Brexit, prepared to have a clear strategy to say that co-operation across Europe is in the interests of defence jobs here in the United Kingdom?
Jeremy Quin
It is absolutely the case that co-operation across Europe is helpful to our own defence sector and to the capabilities of the entire western alliance. A couple of weeks ago, I was there to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Organisation for Joint Armament Co-operation, a major procurement hub that we do jointly with the Germans, the Belgians, the Spanish and the Italians. There are umpteen programmes, including Typhoon, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and Boxer, on which we work very closely. Indeed, the ECRS mark 2 programme to which I have just referred will be integrated by a P4E integration programme across our Typhoon partners. It is absolutely right that we work with all our allies across NATO and they include many of our European friends.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
If this is indeed the last Defence questions for the present Defence team, I would like to place on record my thanks to the Minister for Defence Procurement for his kindness and generosity since I started shadowing him over a year ago. He is well known in the House for his attention to detail and he has been a formidable opponent for me.
“Complacent”, “too traditional”, and “resistant to change or criticism” are some of the words used to describe the Department by the Public Accounts Committee. With a new urgency for innovation due to the clear and present danger created by the war in Ukraine, and with deep concerns that the Department cannot manage large projects such as Dreadnought, is the Minister confident that the Department can deliver the new battle-winning capabilities this country needs, on time and in budget?
Jeremy Quin
I very much thank the hon. Gentleman, my shadow, for his question, which started so well. I am very grateful and I hope that we continue our ongoing relationship across the Dispatch Box. I understand his concerns. They have been voiced by the PAC and we have responded to the concerns raised. I am afraid that I am a details bore, and we do go through the projects project by project. Defence procurement is never easy—it is a tough thing to get right—and I have not yet found a state anywhere on earth that can really deliver to the kind of standards that I am sure the hon. Gentleman would wish to see. What I do know is that, in Defence Equipment and Support and throughout the MOD, we have people who are doing a great job. They are becoming more professional, and senior responsible owners are spending more time on the projects. We are making sure that projects are properly set up to succeed at the start and ensuring that they are properly funded. It is that combination, along with working through the defence and security industrial strategy with British companies, that will get us the results we all wish to see.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (James Heappey)
I hope you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, as I recognise my counterpart Volodymyr Havrylov, the Ukrainian deputy Defence Minister, who joined us in the UK this week as we went to see the Ukrainian troops and sailors in training.
The Ministry of Defence and the whole of Government are taking active steps to counter state threats from China. In line with the NATO strategic concept, we are working with allies to increase our shared understanding and to protect against China’s coercive tactics. Together with other Departments, we have strengthened investment screening, the academic technology approval scheme and our export control regimes.
Martyn Day
The director general of MI5 has said:
“The most game-changing challenge we face comes from the Chinese Communist Party.”
At the last count, the UK Foreign Office had some 63 Mandarin speakers. Can the Minister tell us how many the Ministry of Defence has?
James Heappey
No. I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the emerging threats from China show NATO was right to make cyber and space among the key frontiers, along with the traditional three, and that, when looking at defence procurement and how money is spent, we are world leading in these vital areas of defence?
James Heappey
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, but we should not think that our competition with China is exclusively concentrated on the high-end warfighting capabilities that may or may not be required in the first and second island chains. Every single week, we compete with China for influence around the world. Maintaining the defence effort across the global south to protect our interests around the Commonwealth is every bit as important as preparing to stand alongside the US in anything that might happen in the Pacific.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
There have been multiple reports of Ukrainian resistance and partisan activity in areas under Russian control, particularly in the south of the country. This has likely forced Russia to dedicate additional security personnel to areas it has occupied. Russia has deported 2.5 million people from Ukraine to Russia through filtration camps, and it has also likely detained and interrogated thousands of Ukrainians to try to quell the resistance. Such action will not deter Ukraine, and it will not deter the United Kingdom from continuing to support Ukraine in her fight.
Jason McCartney
Following the Prime Minister’s generous offer to train up to 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers here in the UK, I was delighted to see the first cohort arrive earlier this month. How does the Defence Secretary assess the success of this programme so far, and how does he see it evolving over the summer?
Mr Wallace
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has visited the sites, but I am delighted to have visited one of the sites twice. The first course completes this week, and it has been a learning experience for both sides. We will continue to invest in improving the course, and I am delighted that the international community has now joined us. The Dutch have declared that they will send people to support the training, and the New Zealanders were already here to help the Ukrainians on 105-mm artillery. We are talking with a number of other international partners about delivery.
It is amazing to see men aged from 18 to 50—some women will soon be part of the deployment—who sometimes got on the plane in tracksuits, being trained in basic battlefield skills, the law of armed conflict and so on. It is quite sobering that they will go from here to a war zone, where many of them will tragically make the ultimate sacrifice.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Putin obviously thought the west would fracture at the beginning, and it is good that the west has not fractured so far. It is also good that lots of different countries in the western alliance are providing military hardware, some of it lethal, to Ukraine, but one problem Ukraine is facing is that each country has procured something slightly different, and Ukrainian personnel have to be trained in how to use each of those different pieces of equipment. If we really are to stay in this for the long haul, will we not have to start developing military equipment that we can all give together so that Ukrainian personnel need only one training session rather than 34?
Mr Wallace
Yes. One strength of NATO is its adherence to standards across all the nations in it. At the moment, Ukraine is transiting from using Soviet era calibres and so on to using western weapons systems, which is why it is important to help train Ukraine in their application; they are not one in, one out—they need to be used differently. Having helped establish the international donor co-ordination centre near Stuttgart, Britain has added training into that, so we co-ordinate that properly. Most countries use that and engage, so that this is co-ordinated: we do not double book and we get this in the right place. I urge any other international partner who is thinking of offering training to co-ordinate through that system.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Ukrainians are putting up a valiant and skilful resistance against Russian aggression, but we understand that they are currently losing about 100 men a day, with many more wounded. Given that rate of casualties in modern warfare, and given that the integrated review was published long before the Russian invasion, does the Secretary of State agree with me and many other Conservative colleagues that the supposed 10,000 cuts in the Army, which the new Chief of the General Staff has called “perverse”, should not only be reviewed, but completely reversed?
Mr Wallace
As we can see from our Conservative colleagues, defence spending is a key priority in the leadership race, and I recommend to all leadership candidates who are wanting votes from Conservative Members that they recognise its importance. The threat has changed and it warrants more spending on defence, because the world is more dangerous and anxious than it was—not only when we had the defence Command Paper but before Putin invaded.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State today give an undertaking that the level of defence support to Ukraine in the next six months, both in value and in volume, will be as much as it was in the previous six months?
Mr Wallace
With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I will not categorise it in six-month blocks. As long as I am Defence Secretary, we will continue with the investment and the support to Ukraine, be it in hardware or software. Will it continue through third parties? Yes, it will. Obviously, I cannot speak for the next Prime Minister, but I can say that all the candidates have clearly made a statement to such effect. It is important that we do not give up on this and we carry on, whoever comes in the next Government and after the next election. Putin’s one calculation is that we will all get bored and go back to doing other things. That is how Russia wins, but we are not going to let it win; we must stick at it, for as long as it takes.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I, too, say that no matter what might happen in the reshuffle following the summer, the Ministry of Defence has worked co-operatively, particularly on Ukraine, during these past months? Whoever takes over or stays in place, it is to the benefit of all of us that that continues, whoever the new Prime Minister might be. Who knows, that job in Brussels might be what is waiting for the Secretary of State later this year. The situation in south and eastern Ukraine is getting much worse. Indeed, just in the past few days the Russian Defence Minister Shoigu has ordered an intensification of attacks on those parts of the country. With winter just around the corner, that is the point where there is the potential for allies to be picked off, although I do not lay that accusation at the Secretary of State’s door. Will he ensure that the training being given by the UK keeps pace with what is needed for that intensification and helps get the armed forces of Ukraine through the winter?
Mr Wallace
Let me thank the hon. Gentleman as well. I have never doubted the desire of anyone in this House to keep this country safe, no matter whether they are SNP, Labour, Liberal Democrat or anyone else, and I pay tribute to his constructive manner. We are learning as we go on the training. We started with a pledge to 10,000. As I said this morning in a meeting, I would be perfectly understanding if it ended up being 20,000 or if the Ukrainians sought to switch it at some stage to do something else. The casualties figures were given earlier by the former Armed Forces Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and they have dropped for now, which is a good thing. Russia is facing the consequences of the HIMARS–high mobility artillery rocket system—and I can confirm to the House that our guided multiple launch rocket system is now in country and active, delivering the same munitions. That is having a significant effect on the Russians’ ability to prosecute the war. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the key is to get through the summer and make sure Ukraine is ready for the winter, and then we can continue to start pushing back Russia’s aggressive invasion.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (James Heappey)
We continue to assess the threat posed by Russia and other competitors around the world. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), we are, of course, excited to see defence spending play such a prominent role in the leadership debate. We look forward to working with the new Prime Minister to assess the threat and look at what changes to defence capability might be needed thereafter.
Alan Brown
As has been said, cutting 10,000 troops came from the integrated review, which predates Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The outgoing Chief of the General Staff has said that he is
“not comfortable with an Army of just 73,000”,
and Lord Dannatt has stated that the capability of the fighting force is
“well below what it should be”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 June 2022; Vol. 823, c. 438.]
Given the answers we have heard from the Dispatch Box about increased spending, does that mean that Government Front Benchers agree that the cut of 10,000 should be reversed and that a much larger Army is required?
James Heappey
Nobody in the Ministry of Defence will ever argue against more money being spent on defence, but let us be clear: if more money were made available, there are other things that we would do more immediately than regrow the size of the Army. There are things that we would want to do about the lethality and deployability of the current force, to get more from what we have at the moment. If thereafter there is a discussion about regrowing, great, but there are other things that we would do first.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Autonomous weapons systems are likely to be force multipliers in the future. To what extent does that impact on the Minister’s assessment of manpower? What doctrine does he believe will be needed to govern their use, and how is he recruiting soldiers with the skillsets necessary to handle them effectively?
James Heappey
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. Autonomy is increasingly the key to the successful generation of overwhelming force in the battle space. That is a key part of the integrated review and within the defence industrial strategy. It may well be that a more lethal force—even a bigger force—does not necessarily acquire more workforce in the future if that is the way in which the trend continues to go.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
Our mitigating measures on the cost of living include a freeze of the daily food charge. We are limiting the increase in accommodation charges to 1%, and we are ensuring that the council tax rebate of £150 reaches more than 28,000 of our armed forces people. We are also, of course, bringing in wraparound childcare in time for the new school year.
Marion Fellows
Will the Minister confirm that the cost of a new £250 million royal yacht, whose principal use will be for champagne receptions, is not coming out of the Ministry of Defence budget during a cost of living crisis, when personnel have not received a real-terms rise for a number of years and while bases in Scotland have been closed and we have the smallest UK standing Army ever?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Lady makes a flippant point. The serious point is that this new vessel will deliver jobs right across the United Kingdom.
Joanna Cherry
Notwithstanding the Government’s cuts to the armed forces footprint in Scotland, including at Redford barracks in my constituency, over the years Scots have played a very active role in the defence of their country. Yet despite being injured in service, many veterans over 65 in the lowest-income households miss out on pension credit because their war disablement pension is considered as normal income. What steps is the Minister taking to persuade his counterpart at the Department for Work and Pensions to address this anomaly, to help our veterans cope with the rise in the cost of living?
Leo Docherty
We take any potential anomaly extremely seriously, and I would be pleased to meet the hon. and learned Lady to discuss that specific case. If I may make a general point, it is a bit rich to be told to take lessons on the cost of living from the Scottish National party, given its tax hike on armed forces personnel. There are 7,000 personnel in Scotland who pay £850 more on average, thanks to the SNP tax hike, which should be reviewed. It is absolutely outrageous.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Government’s own figures show that at least 33,000 veterans are on universal credit, and estimates suggest the actual figure could be double that, so why does the Government’s veterans strategy cut specialist employment support in jobcentres—which would help veterans on universal credit who are out of work get back into employment—by 50%?
Leo Docherty
We on the Conservative Benches will not perpetuate the myth that receiving universal credit is a bad thing. Many of these people are in high-paid and good jobs. It is a reflection of the fact that this Government support people into work and that military service gives them skills for life.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (James Heappey)
The Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme has had more than 100,000 applications. Although I appreciation the desperation of many who apply, the reality is that staff numbers and even names of those who worked with us in Helmand are being shared, so it is hard to identify individual applicants. To that end—the entitlement is bound; we know who worked for us— last week, I engaged a number of non-governmental organisations and charities to help us find the people on the list of those who actually worked with us, so that we can bring them to the front of the queue and get them out as quickly as possible.
Jeff Smith
Ministers confirmed last month that around 8,000 Afghans and their families could still be eligible for relocation to the UK under the ARAP scheme. The Minister says that it is hard to identify those people, so what specifically are Ministers doing to identify them, to establish pathways to get them here, and to process their applications as quickly as possible?
James Heappey
I think the hon. Gentleman might realise that I have answered that question in my original answer. We think that there are about 2,000 principals—people who actually worked with us—yet to bring out. Rather than going through tens of thousands of applications, we are asking those with networks in-country to help us find those 2,000 people on the list. We have the capacity and the routes to bring them out. The challenge is finding them when a huge number of applications are gaming the system, with dozens of applications coming in on the same staff number, which should be the individual identifier.
Elliot Colburn
I thank the MOD’s Afghan relocation team who are working tirelessly to identify and process the huge number of applications including friends and relatives of Carshalton and Wallington residents. How many individuals have made it to the UK under the ARAP scheme since Operation Pitting concluded?
James Heappey
A total of 9,962 people have come out under ARAP, 2,984 of whom have come out since Op Pitting.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
We are now only a few weeks away from the one-year anniversary of the start of Operation Pitting, the evacuation from Kabul. A year on, thousands of Afghan citizens are still waiting for their applications to be properly processed, too many are still in temporary accommodation, and the promises made to many of them about relocation and family reunions have been left unhonoured. With the one-year anniversary a few weeks away, what will the Minister be doing to speed up this incredibly slow process, so the promises that this country made to those Afghans who worked with our armed forces can truly be honoured?
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman probably just heard me answer the previous two questions. There are hundreds of thousands of applications, many of which are duplicates, and many of which are from people who have no eligibility under ARAP whatsoever. ARAP is a very tightly bound scheme. It is not the same as the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme or other mechanisms where each case might be judged on its merits. There is a list of people who worked with the British armed forces in Afghanistan, so our focus must be on finding the people on that list and bringing them out. We are doing so quickly.
The hon. Gentleman says that it has been nearly a year. That is correct, Mr Speaker, but it is not as if we can just wander around in Afghanistan and find these people. It is not straightforward. A lot of them are undocumented. He may want to speak to some of the charities that are working on this, as I know that some of his colleagues on the Back Benches do. When I spoke to them last week, they realised that the situation was exactly as I have said: it is not easy; people do not have documents; and we are working fast to get people out. We think we have found of way of doing so quicker, and we will be getting on with it now.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
The hon. Gentleman has raised this with me on more than one occasion previously. I know that it matters greatly to his constituents. As announced back in 2016, Defence Business Services will consolidate its north-west estate into a single location. Last year, a thorough multi-criteria decision analysis was undertaken, which considered a number of locations and recommended consolidation in Blackpool. The full business case is being considered within the approvals process. I expect to make an announcement soon, and will write to the Members representing the constituencies affected.
Peter Dowd
I thank the Minister for Defence Procurement for his answer, and for procuring some continuity in the Government, against the odds, by remaining in his post during this crucial time. Will he consider bringing the hubs in Liverpool and Manchester into the Defence Business Services workplace programme solution to avoid compulsory redundancies?
Jeremy Quin
What I can say is that in locating to Blackpool, as was recommended, we will do our utmost to avoid compulsory redundancies. There is a good working relationship at a local level with the trade unions, which are doing well to represent their members. There is an absolute expectation on our part that we will maximise the ability to work flexibly, with things such as deferred moves and everything else we can do to support our employees. This move was designed not to cut posts, but as an estate rationalisation scheme. That is at the back and the front of our minds, and we will work with the trade unions and our employees to ensure as few redundancies as can possibly be managed.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I thank the Minister for moving so many of the jobs to Blackpool and to my constituency—yet one more to add to my list of wonderful things the Government have done for the town of Blackpool. Will he encourage all Government Departments, not just the MOD, to share his vision and his confidence in the people of my constituency?
Jeremy Quin
I know we are not alone in putting Government jobs into Blackpool; it is a popular location, and it was entirely driven by the intensive work we did on finding the best location. I can reassure my hon. Friend and this House that we undertook a very serious bit of work looking at all available options, and the recommendation of Blackpool emerged as a result of that serious analysis.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I would like to update the House on the exciting progress of the United Kingdom’s future combat air system programme, Tempest. At Farnborough international airshow this week, our industry and international partners are showcasing the new FCAS capabilities, demonstrating the momentum we have achieved. Today, I can announce that a flying demonstrator aircraft is being developed by the UK MOD and Italian industry. This piloted combat air demonstrator will fly for the first time within the next five years and is an important step in ensuring that our technology skills and industrial capability are ready for the future. I am delighted that the UK is working alongside Italy, Japan and Sweden on the same combat air journey. We intend to take collaborative decisions by the end of the year.
Chris Loder
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on progress being made with the new medium-sized helicopter procurement, noting that Leonardo Helicopters in Yeovil is the only end-to-end helicopter manufacturer in the UK and supports hundreds of jobs in West Dorset? I would like to make the case again for the AW149.
Mr Wallace
I reassure my hon. Friend that he will have plenty of opportunity to lobby on behalf of his constituents and others in the south-west. The new medium helicopter competition will align with the defence and security industrial strategy; the competition’s contract notice and dynamic pre-qualification questionnaire were released on 18 May this year and responses are now being evaluated to determine a shortlist of credible suppliers. The second half of the competition, in which we will ask the selected suppliers to provide more detailed responses, is due to be launched later this year.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
When the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey), answered my urgent question on Thursday about new public allegations about British special forces in Afghanistan, he said that,
“the Secretary of State is clear that he rules nothing out”.
He also said:
“I am certain that the House will hear from him in the near future.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2022; Vol. 718, c. 494.]
With the summer recess starting on Thursday, when will the Secretary of State make a statement to the House on this?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s interest. It is an incredibly important allegation that has been made, which none of us takes lightly. Mr Speaker, you waived at the time the sub judice rule; as the right hon. Gentleman will know, there is a matter before the courts that may determine that timetable and precludes my guessing when I can make certain decisions. What I can say in the meantime is that I think the right hon. Gentleman is due for a briefing on this matter. We have a date for him on that, and I am happy to oblige the SNP Front Bench as well if they wish to get it. We take everything seriously. This is incredibly important, but we can only act on the evidence before us. People need to remember that we cannot act based on noises off. We will always act on the evidence put before us, but this is a matter for the independent police and prosecutor.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Mr Wallace
Our plans are to keep Scotland within the United Kingdom, because it is in the best interests of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to all be part of a greater Union providing security for each other. We are better together.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I want to return to the issue that the shadow Secretary of State raised—not the individual allegations or even the “Panorama” programme, but the wider issue of the unanswerable case for democratic oversight of special forces. When will the Department devise proposals, bring them to the House, and allow us to debate and legislate on that issue? Surely that does not require anything at all from the courts.
Mr Wallace
Indeed it does not, and the hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to table a motion and have a debate in this House. [Interruption.] He says, “Come on!”, but I cannot remember one. The key is making sure that democratically elected Ministers in this House have oversight of our special forces, and we are also bound by law in the same way that anyone else is. There is no exception to the law, whether through investigational powers or the operational prerogative on which we deploy our forces.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (James Heappey)
We learn an awful lot from watching the way that modern conflict is being prosecuted in Ukraine, and that is indeed shaping our analysis of the stockpiles we need to hold, particularly given the intensity of the modern artillery battle.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
I recently met the families, alongside the Prime Minister. I committed at that meeting to instruct the MOD to look afresh at the case to be made, and that work is ongoing.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Leo Docherty
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the work he does for the armed forces in his constituency. Of course this a very serious matter, so I am happy to confirm that we will look at it and I will write to him.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
James Heappey
Those are not concerns that I have heard reflected. I have visited the artillery training that was taking place at Rollestone camp, the Secretary of State has been to visit Warcop twice, and tomorrow I am going to Knook camp in Wiltshire with my Ukrainian counterpart. I can assure the hon. Lady that while my experience of the interpreters has been amazingly positive, if there are any shortcomings we will make sure they are rectified.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Bracknell constituency is very proud to have a new veterans’ hub at Crowthorne fire station, and my thanks go to the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service. What additional provision might be available for communities wanting to provide local support for veterans?
Leo Docherty
I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for his characteristic support for armed forces personnel and veterans in his constituency. The hub is clearly an important thing, and those people should be made aware of opportunities for support coming from the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, which he will know well.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Mr Wallace
I will invest in whatever furthers Britain’s national interest. I totally understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. He will understand, although perhaps not from the west coast of Scotland, the importance of the royal yacht, because the number of people who pay money to go and look at it in Edinburgh, where it is currently tied up, is incredible. It is very popular.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The two voluntary outflow reasons for personnel from the armed forces tend to be that there are greater opportunities outside the military and the impact on family life. The Minister has done extraordinary work, so what assessment has he made of the armed forces families strategy and how it will take account of those two issues?
Leo Docherty
The strategy is an important piece of work. We launched it in January, and we will keep the House up to date. We acknowledge that we recruit the armed forces personnel, but we retain the families. We want to give them flexibility and choice, and we look forward to reporting back.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
I do agree. I think there are huge opportunities, and the hon. Gentleman correctly points out that the RAF has an ambition of 2040 for net zero. We are investing a lot of money, including £2.35 billion into the European common radar system or ECRS Mark 2, a prime recipient of which will be Edinburgh. Scottish companies have a lot of other opportunities to bring to our attention, and we will happily look at them.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I think it was at his keynote speech to the land warfare conference that the Chief of the General Staff made his oft-quoted remarks that this was “our 1937 moment”, that it was “perverse” to cut 10,000 people from the Army and that we would be at risk of being “outnumbered” in the event of warfare. Can the Secretary of State tell me whether that speech was cleared through his office before CGS gave it?
Mr Wallace
Some of the characteristics that my hon. Friend mentions were not in the speech. The Chief of the General Staff did not say it was perverse to cut 10,000 troops—he did say it was a 1937 moment. The important thing about 1937 was not only that General Montgomery had talked about mobilisation, but that he had talked about ensuring that the force was relevant. If you have a big mass force that is irrelevant to modern technology, you end up like Russia, stuck on the road to Kyiv—wiped out.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Leo Docherty
We look forward to making an announcement in due course.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I start by congratulating my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Defence Front-Bench team for the competence, clarity and steadfastness they have shown, particularly in recent months in proposing the UK contribution to Ukraine. When my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement visits Farnborough, will he find time to attend the joint economic data hub hosted by the UK Defence Solutions Centre, which demonstrates to Her Majesty’s Treasury that £1 invested in defence has a multiplier of more than £1?
Jeremy Quin
In a packed programme, I will do my utmost to visit the JEDHub centre. My right hon. Friend is too modest to point out that that came out of a recommendation from the Dunne report. It was a valuable recommendation, and knowing exactly what defence investment means for our economy is very good news for defence and very good news for the United Kingdom.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Leo Docherty
The point is that it is all about fairness, and we must not disadvantage any comparable British soldier in the same circumstances, so currently there are no plans to extend that measure to family members.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
It is thanks to the team on the Front Bench and the Prime Minister that I am still able to wear this badge showing the Ukrainian flag, because had it not been for the supply of next-generation light anti-tank weapons some three to four months before the invasion, the Russians would be in Kyiv now. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that we will still be able to maintain the supply of ammunition that the Ukrainians naturally need?
Mr Wallace
We are able to do that, and where we do not have our own stocks, alongside international partners and donors we scour the world to find them and make sure that we have them. Ukraine and Russia are both discovering that a prolonged battle is very hard to manage with their own stocks. Russia is now using very old equipment, some of which came out in the 1950s, and using it incorrectly—for example, using equipment designed to kill a ship to hit a building.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Complaints about service accommodation have rocketed in the first four months of this year, and are 20% higher than last year. Can Ministers explain why, and say how they plan to rectify this urgently, given the already undue pressure experienced by families and those who are married to someone in the armed forces?
Leo Docherty
We take these issues extremely seriously. That is why we have invested more than £936 million in service family accommodation in the last seven years, and there is more coming. Under the future accommodation model, we want to give choice, flexibility, and accommodation of the highest possible standard to those living in service family accommodation.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
British nuclear testing veterans and their families met the Prime Minister, Defence Ministers, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and me on 8 June. The veterans told me that they felt that the Prime Minister had listened to them, and they were hopeful that they would be formally recognised. Will the Secretary of State provide a progress report on the actions that he and the Prime Minister have taken since the meeting to secure the recognition that these veterans so deserve?
Leo Docherty
It was my great pleasure to be at that meeting, and I am happy to write to the hon. Lady with an update.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Despite stark warnings from successive Chiefs of the Defence Staff and others about the vulnerability of our undersea cables in the light of increased Russian submarine activity, it took until 2021 for the Government to announce that they would acquire a multi-role ocean surveillance ship to protect that critical infrastructure. It was recently reported that the Government still have not decided on the capability required, a procurement strategy, or an in-service date. Why is that?
Jeremy Quin
We are looking closely at how we take forward MROSS. As the hon. Lady suggests, it was an important step to make that part of the defence Command Paper in spring ’21. We said that we would ensure that we brought that capability into service, but we need to get it right, and considerable work is continuing on what exactly that capability should look like.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
“Meritorious” was the word that the Prime Minister used in this House to describe the application made under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme by a former Supreme Court of Afghanistan judge who put hundreds of terrorists behind bars, undoubtedly saving British lives. I was promised a meeting with Ministers on the subject; that never materialised, and suddenly, out of the blue, his ARAP application was turned down last week because he was deemed to have not worked closely enough with the UK Government. I plead with Ministers to meet me to review this hero’s case, because I have no doubt that he will be hunted down and slaughtered by the Taliban if we do not bring him to safety.
James Heappey
The hon. Lady and I walked through the Lobby together the other week—it was one of the rare occasions on which we were in the same Lobby—and were able to discuss this case. I asked the team to look at it. ARAP is a very tightly bound scheme for those who worked with the British armed forces, and the person for whom she is advocating did not. There are other routes by which that person can come to this country, including through the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, and I will make sure that she is connected with the appropriate Minister on that.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Will we be left without a low-level parachute capability when Hercules goes out of service? If so, can Ministers say how long our airborne forces will be grounded while Atlas is upgraded?
Mr Wallace
I took steps immediately to close the gap, if there was one, in that last year we purchased a significant number of new parachutes off the shelf. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, given his interest in airborne forces, that both the German and French air forces have on numerous occasions jumped out of A400s, and it is odd that we have not yet done that, so that is not the reason why this matter has not progressed. We are making sure that we have the right equipment and the right training for pilots. We are on track to do that, but I will give him an update. Just like him, I think it is incredibly important that the RAF gets on and does this.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
House of Commons Library analysis forecasts that Ministry of Defence day-to-day spending will be cut by 5.5% in real terms by 2024-25. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this amounts to a real-terms cut of £1.7 billion over the next three years?
Mr Wallace
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. I would also like to pay tribute to his predecessor as the defence spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). We served in the Scottish Parliament together, and he will be missed from this brief.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), I think that is based on the new inflation rate. When we got our defence spending in the comprehensive spending review, the GDP deflator was at 1.5%. As a result, we have been compensated by the Treasury in the short term for inflationary pressures, but that will not show in the core budget until after the accounts are in. However, he is right to point out that inflationary pressures on a budget such as ours, with huge amounts of capital, will have an impact. We are taking steps to try to mitigate that, and I am looking forward to engaging with the new Prime Minister to make sure we get that mitigation.
Extreme Heat Preparedness
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the urgent question, I want to express my disappointment that the Government did not come forward with a general statement on the heatwave, given its potential to have wide-ranging and serious impacts on the nation. Members need to be able to scrutinise the Government on all issues arising from the current high temperature, especially as the Government felt it appropriate for Cobra to meet. If it is good enough for Cobra to sit and discuss, it is good enough for this House to hear about as well.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the Government’s preparedness for the extreme heat in the UK.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Kit Malthouse)
For the first time ever, the UK Health Security Agency has issued a level 4 heat health alert for much of the country. Temperatures are forecast to reach the low 40s° C. It looks probable that they will break the current UK record of 38.7° C, recorded in Cambridge in 2019, and they currently stand at 37.5° C in Suffolk.
I have just come from chairing the latest in a series of Cobra briefings that have been held since last week, including over the weekend, to co-ordinate the extensive preparation and mitigation measures being taken across the Government to face the next 36 hours. I am grateful to colleagues in the devolved Administrations and in local resilience forums around the country and our local authority and agency partners, which are keeping public services running and responding to any local issues that may emerge.
Thanks to our strong forecasting capabilities, the Government were able to launch a comprehensive public communications campaign ahead of the heatwave. This involved advice from, among others, the UK HSA, the Met Office, the Department of Health and Social Care, our chief medical officer, Professor Chris Whitty, and the deputy chief medical officer, Dr Thomas Waite.
While we hope people will take notice of the advice on how to keep safe in the high temperatures, the NHS has made sure that all its operational capacity and capability are available during the heatwave. The 999 and 111 services have also stood up all available capacity. There are now more than 2,400 call handlers for 999, which is an increase of about 500 since September last year. On the detail, I will defer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who will make a statement on the health system in this heatwave imminently.
While heatwaves are not a new phenomenon, we are adapting to temperatures not previously experienced in this country and to events such as this coming with increased frequency and severity. The Government have been in the lead on appreciating the impacts of climate change; indeed, it was a Conservative Government who enshrined net zero in law. Since the time of David Cameron, Conservative Prime Ministers have spoken passionately about the impact of climate change and the need to keep 1.5° alive, notably at last year’s COP26 UN climate change conference.
As I say, we have long taken the lead on this issue. Over the past three decades, the UK has driven down emissions faster than any other G7 country, and we have clear plans to go further. We are showing the way on climate change, helping over 90% of countries set net zero targets during our COP26 presidency—up from 30% two years ago. On cleaner energy, the UK is also forging ahead of most other countries. About 40% of our power now comes from cleaner and cheaper renewables. Our net zero work is vital to create resilience. We must continue to drive forward the initiatives that help us curb the impacts of climate change and at the same time build systems that help us withstand extreme events as they arise.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the Minister for his response. As he says, this week the UK is likely to have its hottest day on record, with the Met Office issuing its first ever red warning for extreme heat for England, and Wales already recording its hottest day.
These brutal temperatures pose a very real threat to life and infrastructure, as well as to education, travel and, most importantly, health. It is indeed disappointing that the Minister did not offer his own statement about what the Government were doing, instead of waiting to be dragged here by an urgent question. Although the heatwave has now been declared a national emergency, there are real questions about how seriously the Government are taking it and how prepared they are. They seem to be turning up with a watering can when what we need is a giant fire hose.
Will the Minister say exactly how many Cobra meetings on the heat emergency the Prime Minister has missed, and why? What practical support have the Government offered to the NHS, care homes and schools, beyond the guidance in the heatwave plans? For example, what financial resources are they offering? Ten months after the consultation closed, where is the Government’s national resilience strategy? Will the Government agree to maximum workplace temperature limits to give workers legal protection against working in high temperatures, and ensure that employers allow staff to work flexibly in the heat? Will he condemn those on his own Benches who have, unbelievably, sought to make a cultural wedge issue out of even this subject, with Conservative Members calling those who want to take precautions “cowards” and “snowflakes”?
The Government can hardly say that they have not been cautioned about the risks. The Committee on Climate Change has warned that heat-related deaths could triple by 2050, yet in the words of the chair of the Adaptation Committee, adaptation in this country is
“under-resourced, underfunded and often ignored.”
None of the 42 adaptation-specific recommendations have been implemented in full. The committee reports that more than half a million new homes that are liable to overheating have been built in the UK over the past 10 years, even after the issue was first raised. What exactly are the Government doing to close the gap on adaptation? Finally, when will the Government finally join the dots and stop pouring fuel on the fire? It is beyond perverse that Ministers wring their hands over extreme heat one day, and give the green light to new oil and gas extraction the next. Will the Minister rule out any new oil and gas licences in the North sea, and scrap yet more subsidies through the investment allowance as part of the energy profits levy? Will they finally turn the tap off new oil and gas?
Kit Malthouse
Obviously, our immediate concern is to ensure that we get the country through the next 36 hours or so in as good a shape as possible. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that all our local resilience forums are standing up. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities joined the chairs’ call this morning, and they are meeting today to consider what steps need to be taken. There are simple behavioural things that we can all do to help protect ourselves and look out for the most vulnerable, particularly the elderly who are living alone.
The hon. Lady raised a raft of policy issues, which will no doubt be addressed in our debates on this issue in the months to come. She asked about the Prime Minister’s presence at Cobra. It is literally my job as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to chair Cobra, particularly where the Civil Contingencies Secretariat is involved, and to brief the Prime Minister accordingly, which I did yesterday morning at 8 o’clock. It is my job to co-ordinate across the whole of Government, and that is what we have been doing. As a result, I am confident that all the guidance and support needed in schools and hospitals, and for our police forces and others involved in this effort, is working its way out through the system, and they are all standing up well. In particular, our co-operation with the devolved Administrations has been strong, which is why the public health message about the next 36 hours has landed so well.
In wider terms, as I am sure the hon. Lady will have noticed, this heatwave has not just affected the United Kingdom. It has hit the whole of continental Europe. A number of countries that in many ways are more accustomed than we are to higher temperatures are having to take similar action, and in some circumstances their populations are suffering. That is why it is so important that the UK leads on this debate globally, as we did at COP26 last year.
As the hon. Lady knows, we have launched the Energy Transition Council, with 20 Governments and 15 international institutions participating. We are working hard with countries around the world to help them to move to a cleaner future, while we also shift our own energy mix in the right direction. However, as I am sure she will appreciate, as we move towards net zero we have to strike a balance between playing our part in fighting climate change in this country and keeping the lights on for people who need that.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
May I, through a question to my right hon. Friend, put to the leaders of our public services, including the ambulance service, that if their staff do not have summer gear, they should be allowed to wear their own safe and appropriate summer gear, and ask all of them to ensure that people have good equipment and clothes for the summer, given that the temperatures are changing? It is wrong that people should only have winter gear in times like this.
Kit Malthouse
The Father of the House raises an extremely important point about the ability of our emergency services to cope and their resilience. Each of those organisations and their leaders will have to take that into account over the months to come. I have said to the team internally that we must learn exactly such practical lessons during this brief but nevertheless severe period of weather. I am sure we will see impacts on the transport network and elsewhere in the next 36 hours, some of which we can mitigate, but it is probably the case that not all effects will be mitigated; we should learn those lessons. My hon. Friend raises an important point for the future.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this hugely important urgent question.
On Tuesday, we will be in the hottest 1.2% of the world. Once again, when faced with a national emergency, driven by the climate emergency, which the Government could see coming a mile off, Ministers were asleep at the wheel. The Prime Minister is too busy planning parties, instead of planning for Britain. Is anyone else having déjà vu? As has been acknowledged, he has already missed two Cobra meetings on the red heat warning and is set to miss a third—the same man who missed five Cobra meetings in the weeks preceding the onset of the pandemic. It is clear that this finished Prime Minister has clocked off, but with 49 dangerous days to go. The heatwave is a reminder that the Government have not tackled the growing climate emergency facing our country, and the leadership election gives us little hope that that will change.
As Britain boils, will the Minister answer these questions? Where is the plan for the delivery of essential services and keeping people safe at work, on transport, and in hospitals, care homes and schools in the coming days? Where is the advice for vulnerable workers who face working in unbearable conditions? We need action on guidance for safe indoor working temperatures, and we need the Government to ensure that employers allow staff to work flexibly in the heat. We need a plan, not a panic. Labour already has a resilience plan for long-term, strategic emergency planning. Where is the Government’s national resilience strategy? Will the Minister give a date for its publication? It is already 10 months overdue.
It is the primary duty of any Government to keep the public safe. Britain deserves better.
Kit Malthouse
As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, there are significant plans in place to deal with all manner of extreme weather events, and all local resilience forums have their plans in place. As I said earlier, there is guidance available for schools and hospitals, particularly on the safety and welfare of their staff, but also of other people in their facilities. The Health and Safety Executive is available to give guidance to employers, and there is already a clear obligation in law for employers to maintain a reasonable temperature at work; obviously that varies from building to building and from facility to facility, but nevertheless it is clear that employers have that obligation.
As for the Prime Minister and Cobra, as I said earlier, I have attended many Cobra meetings since 2011, and only one—during the 2011 riots in London—was chaired by the Prime Minister. Others have routinely been chaired by Secretaries of State, and, as I said earlier, it is literally my job to do so. On that issue of non-attendance, I gently point out that my direct shadow, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), is not in her place on the Opposition Front Bench; obviously this is not as important as her radio show today.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend explain why the Government seem to be creating a lot of unnecessary anxiety? Is not the key issue that we should adapt to our climate as we have in the past? Is not there a real problem now that too many buildings are being built without natural ventilation—for example, many buildings on this estate? Why do we not go back to having natural ventilation, so that we do not have to rely so much on air conditioning?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend raises an important point. In all our public messaging, we have tried to be balanced and moderate in our view, and to point to the particular vulnerability of certain smaller groups. Indeed, I have asked Secretaries of State to identify those vulnerable groups and possibly to target them with more urgent communication—particularly the elderly, who often live alone, and who we know from elsewhere in Europe are vulnerable in this kind of weather. My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about our adaptation to climate change. As we see more extreme weather events, we must bear in mind that we need to protect ourselves from the heat, but at the same time we need to be able to adapt to cope with the cold as well. That often creates a challenge.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
I, too, commend the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing an urgent question on the extreme heat we are experiencing across these islands.
The Met Office has extended the amber alert in Scotland and declared a red alert for much of England and Wales. UK temperature records are expected to be broken in all four nations across the next two days, with temperatures to exceed 40° in England. We have reports that the RAF has suspended operations out of Brize Norton due to the runway melting, rendering it unsafe—these are unusual times.
The heatwave threatens to kill hundreds or even thousands of people. To ensure a continuous monitoring and response to the situation, the Scottish Government have continued to operate the Scottish Government Resilience Room. Of course, at a UK level we have heard that Cobra meetings have been held to discuss the emergency. Much as he did at the start of the covid-19 pandemic, our esteemed Prime Minister has declined to attend. We heard the Minister’s excuses for the Prime Minister’s continued refusal to deal with emergencies and crises, or even acknowledge them. We find it wholly unacceptable.
Lastly, I want to reinforce the message of how important it is to practise good water safety at a time like this. All too often in Scotland and in other places we hear of tragic accidents, when people, normally young or middle-aged men, enter open water to cool down or for some hi-jinks and encounter difficulties. I renew my call for caution and to think before entering any open waters.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to discuss—and we have been discussing in Cobra—the different circumstances faced in Scotland, where the school term has ended. There is the possibility—let us hope it does not occur—of accidental drowning or other incidents in water in hot weather. In England, where the schools are still open, we are keen for kids to be in school, because we generally think they are safer and better managed. As for the attendance of the Prime Minister at Cobra, I gently point out that the First Minister of the Scottish Government has not attended any of the Cobras.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
People living in the Woottons, Castle Rising, Reffley and other parts of my constituency are rightly angry that they were left without water over the last 48 hours due to a burst main. I am grateful to those who worked through the night to fix the broken pipe. I am assured it will be finished later this afternoon. Based on that experience, does my right hon. Friend agree that for preparedness, it is vital that lessons are learnt by Anglian Water and other companies about the importance of open communication with the public and effective contingency plans to deliver water, particularly for vulnerable people?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. He will be reassured to know that colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are in close touch with water companies, along with other partners, as they seek to get us through this particular 36 hours in good shape. He is quite right that where there is a problem with water supply, the easiest and best thing that can be done immediately is to communicate as much as possible, both when incidents happen and when the resolution and timeframe can be expected.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The problem with what the Minister is saying is that he admitted we have been here before. In 1976, we hit a temperature of 36° and in 2003 we hit a temperature of 38.3°. At those points, we had 20% and 59% excess deaths, so we know how dangerous heat is. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) asked us all to adapt. He needs to look at the evidence from history for why the climate crisis is so dangerous. We cannot adapt in this sort of heat. We know—the Minister just accepted it—that we will have more extreme weather conditions. Given that none of us wants to see history repeating itself, does he recognise how devastating it is for our communities? Yet again in my constituency today schools are closed, there is chaos with the trains and there is no national resilience strategy. The Minister talks about wanting to keep the lights on, but is it not the truth that he is keeping this country in the dark about the climate we face?
Kit Malthouse
One of the critical things we need to bear in mind is that this period of hot weather will be short. It will be 36 hours long. The kinds of effects that the hon. Lady mentions have generally been over longer periods. For example, in 2003 in France, I think it was, there were eight days of 40-plus and, critically, the temperature at night did not drop below 20°. In those circumstances, we need to look at vulnerable groups. I hope she will be promoting the message, through all her very sophisticated and well-followed social media channels, that we should do the neighbourly thing and knock on the door of older people who may be living alone, just to make sure they are okay for the moment, while, as I said earlier, we do our best to lead the world on making the changes we need to address climate change.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this urgent question. It is important that we discuss this issue when almost all the Members in the Chamber will have constituents who are suffering in one way or another through the heatwave. I commend to the Minister the report on heatwaves that the Environmental Audit Committee did four years ago, when the hon. Lady and I were serving on it, together with some other Members in the Chamber. We took evidence from the NHS and education officers in the relevant departments. There are elements of our recommendations that the Government chose not to endorse at the time, but the Minister may like to refresh the memories of his officials about those and consider whether that would be an appropriate thing to look at now.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his constructive contribution and I will certainly take a look at that document. The Cabinet Office does not lead on this issue, but nevertheless, given that we are coping with this contingency and that we need to learn lessons, perhaps that is one lesson that we need to revisit.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this important question. It must be very obvious that in this age of extremes—extreme heat, extreme cold and flooding—our infrastructure is simply not capable of dealing with it and that we have not really followed through on the commitments we have given at successive COP events. Will the Minister commit to the Government taking a long, hard look at all the decisions taken at COP that we have or have not followed and all our infrastructure requirements that need to be changed, so that we have effective public services that are properly funded and properly staffed in order to deal with these kinds of extremes? They are not one-offs. They will come more and more often as the years go on and we have to be ready for them.
Kit Malthouse
I think it is generally accepted that the UK Government and my right hon. Friend the COP26 President fought hard at COP26 to keep 1.5° alive and that we put it all out on the field in pursuit of a global assault on climate change. We have certainly done our part in the UK—for example, by virtually phasing out the use of coal in our power generation. There is always more to do as we drive towards net zero in 2050, and I hope and believe that the right hon. Member will agitate to make sure that we get there.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I have a network of reservoirs at the head of the Holme and Colne valleys, so I join the earlier warnings about the dangers of swimming in open water. I also have the Pennine moorlands, where we have already had a number of devastating moorland fires earlier this year. It is an absolute tinderbox up there at the moment, so will the Minister join me in getting the message out there again that it is illegal to have barbecues, fires and fireworks up on the moors? There is a £2,500 fine, but those found guilty can also face prison. We do not want any more devastating moorland fires.
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point and I am more than happy to reinforce his message. As he may know, we have issued a red alert for wildfires. We are very concerned and all fire and rescue services are stood up to deal with them as fast as they possibly can.
Mr Speaker
It might be worth having a helicopter capable of actually reaching the moors with the equipment to put the fires out, which they did not have last time.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Working in extreme heat can really affect people’s health and can even be fatal. Spain has strict rules on working temperature: a maximum of 27° indoors and 25° when doing physical activity. Even the US guidelines are 24°, yet we have absolutely nothing here. With extreme heat becoming more regular in the UK, will the Government legislate for maximum working temperatures?
Kit Malthouse
As I said, the law, as it stands, says that employers have an obligation to maintain a reasonable temperature at work—[Interruption.] It is not defined because circumstances may change. If someone is working in front of a blast furnace, that is different from working in an office. We may find that for many people during this period, being at work is cooler than being at home. Although I understand the hon. Lady’s point, there is already an obligation on employers to make sure that the temperature is reasonable for the circumstances.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to praise the Meteorological Office, which was able to predict the heatwave with its Cray computers and declare a red alert days in advance? Is he aware that the Governments of France and Germany have been criticised for not giving advance warning of heatwaves in the northern parts of those countries, where heatwaves are not so known?
Kit Malthouse
I am more than happy to join my hon. Friend in praising the accuracy and professionalism of the Met Office. Its ability to predict the heatwave with some accuracy, both in respect of timing and geographically, has been remarkable. We rely on it for much of our resilience planning. There is no doubt about it: it has some of the best weather forecasters in the world.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
This is climate change, pure and simple, and the Government must get their head out of the sand. Beyond the transition period and all the rest of it, will the Government set an end date for all UK oil and gas exploration between now and 2050?
Kit Malthouse
I do not know whether the hon. Lady can cast her mind back, but I remember that the Conservative slogan more than 10 years ago was “Vote blue, go green.” The battle against climate change has been central to Conservative party policy for well over a decade now. I realise that there is a battle to claim it, as there is a battle to claim any kind of compassion, but in fact we should all be working together on climate change.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accept that there are just too many climate deniers on the Government Benches, too many oil licences being granted, too many carbon budgets being missed and too many Government Members calling those who are concerned about the heatwave “snowflakes” for his Government to be considered anything other than part of the climate catastrophe? Anything that they say today means absolutely nothing when they have leadership candidates moving away from net zero. It is an absolute joke, and this Government are a joke when it comes to the climate crisis.
Kit Malthouse
It seems only five minutes ago that the hon. Gentleman was supporting the last leader of his party, one of whose pledges was to reopen the coalmines.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Although it is right that Government Departments should prepare and plan for foreseen and unforeseen emergencies and crises, does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agree that we have seen some hysteria being demonstrated in this House today about a couple of warm days that most of our constituents, if they are not working, are probably out enjoying? When it gets too hot, they will go and sit in the shade, have a cold drink and cool down. Does he agree that the main thing is that we explain to people their own personal responsibilities? What we should be avoiding is heaping on them more expensive climate policies, which are already costing them a fortune and draining their pockets.
Kit Malthouse
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that the vast majority of the population will get through the next 36 hours in good shape, but I am sure that he also recognises that there are groups who are particularly vulnerable to the heat. I know that, as a good neighbour, if he lives next door to an older person he will knock on that person’s door and make sure that they are getting through it all right.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s last answer gets to the heart of what is wrong with the Government’s approach: it seems to be all about going to sit in the shade and helping neighbours out. What we need is a strategic approach, but I have not seen that.
The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), referred to the Committee’s report on heatwaves in 2018. One of its recommendations was about good, green infrastructure standards to deal with urban heat islands. Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster planning to do anything at all to advance that agenda?
Kit Malthouse
That is obviously the responsibility of another Secretary of State; my job, as I say, is to get us through the next 36 hours in as good a shape as possible and learn the lessons therefrom. But the hon. Lady is right: green infrastructure makes a huge difference, and planting new trees, as she knows, is a big part of our agenda into the future.
I would just say, though, that one thing we need to reflect on is that the growth of problems with climate change and the fight against it cover many, many decades. As far as I can see, in the past decade or so we have seen an acceleration in the UK’s effort in comparison with the previous decade under a Labour Government.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Last year’s advice report by the Adaptation Committee stated that
“the gap between the level of risk we face and the level of adaptation underway has widened. Adaptation action has failed to keep pace with the worsening reality of climate risk.”
Why has that happened? The Government have been in office for 12 years.
Kit Malthouse
Again, that is the responsibility of another Secretary of State, but I am more than happy to look at—[Interruption.] I came here to talk about the next 36 hours; about my responsibility, which is the Civil Contingencies Secretariat; and about the co-ordination that is taking place across the Government. However, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests and as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), we do need to try to adapt ourselves to the weather patterns as they emerge.
That said, this is a problem that Governments around the world are having to face. In the event of extremes of temperature, it is hard to adapt the infrastructure to deal with very cold and very hot incidents and their frequency. Much has been said about the impact of heat on the railways, and people have asked why they can continue to function in hotter countries. In Italy, for example, more concrete is put into the sleepers, with the result that the rails are less likely to warp, but that does not do the Italians much good in the event of extreme cold, when they face problems similar to those that we face in the next 36 hours.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The extreme heat is accentuating the travel chaos that is currently being experienced across the United Kingdom. Flights are being cancelled at short notice, with many of our constituents left stranded, and some trains are seriously overcrowded. I experienced that myself yesterday when trying to get from Edinburgh to London. Will the right hon. Gentleman speak to the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that airlines such as British Airways and train companies such as Thameslink are taken to task for the failures in the service that they provide, and that they are made to compensate our constituents appropriately?
Kit Malthouse
I am sure the hon. and learned Lady will be pleased to know that I am meeting the Secretary of State for Transport this very afternoon, to ensure that our plans—not just for the next 36 hours, but for the next few weeks—are in place from a governmental point of view, and that we issue exactly the sort of challenge to the private sector that she has requested.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I do not feel that the House is any better informed about the Government’s response to this heatwave following the answer to the urgent question than we were when we first walked in. The Government’s approach seems to be that this is merely an unfortunate 36 hours of very hot weather and we will just have to soldier on through it and stand in the shade, but what we need from them is a long-term plan. What are our vulnerable and elderly constituents to do? Who should they contact in this situation? Where is the advice from the Government? There does not seem to be any urgency. Will the Minister go away and then come back and do a better job?
Kit Malthouse
There has been enormous urgency. As I said in my response to the urgent question—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening—I have just come from the third COBRA meeting, in which we discussed our preparations. They involve extensive work with the devolved Administrations, the communications plan which is out there, and the plethora of guidance that has been issued in the last 48 hours or so—and even in the middle of last week.
This is a short period of hot weather. The best thing we can do while we stand up public services—[Interruption.] I can only answer the question that I am asked. The best thing we can do is adapt our individual behaviour to get us through it while we learn the lessons from it.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Under this Government, deaths among homeless people are becoming commonplace in extreme winter and summer weather. This week they will have no access to shade, or to water or sunscreen. Local authority emergency weather protocols that help those living on our streets are currently discretionary. Why will the Minister not resource local authorities properly, and do as The Big Issue asks and remove this discretion?
Kit Malthouse
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been working on this issue, and we have considered the plight of the homeless in COBRA. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know—and my right hon. Friend has been publicising the fact—that he has been liaising closely with the Mayor of London, in particular, and that a network of cooling hubs has been set up for individuals who do find themselves on the street during this period.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
When I had the privilege of meeting colleagues at the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals animal rescue centre in Milton, in my constituency, we talked about many issues affecting animals—not only wild animals but those involved in agriculture, as well as our pets—including the critical impact of climate. The Minister has referred to COBRA. Can he tell us what discussions his Department and others are having with organisations such as the Scottish SPCA on animal husbandry and welfare as we continue into this utter climate catastrophe?
Kit Malthouse
Colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have been in extensive discussions with those who handle animals in all settings, including in some particularly acute areas. For example, the Royal Welsh show is on this week, which will involve 200,000 people and quite a lot of animals being out and about in the open, and we have been in close liaison with the Welsh Government about the issues that are being faced there. Extensive work is ongoing and there are extensive guidelines about animal husbandry during this period. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise the plight of animals as well as that of our fellow humans.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
It has been 1,174 days since this Chamber passed a climate emergency motion. Does the Minister feel that the Government have given this adequate attention and been able to respond? I have to say that I have been a bit confused by some of his statements today, because they have been in direct contradiction to the current medical advice that this type of weather will affect healthy people and that it is not just about the vulnerable. That is how critical this is, and I hope he can clarify that point so that people do not end up in 30° hospitals.
Kit Malthouse
I hope that the hon. Lady is not attempting to create confusion. We have been very clear about the simple message that everyone should take sensible measures to guard their own health. They should stay in the shade, drink lots of water, wear a hat and not exercise unduly, but we are focused on the groups we know are particularly vulnerable, following what happened in France back in 2003. We think there needs to be a very sharp focus on them, and our message is clear. There are steps we can take individually and collectively to protect ourselves, and that is what we are promoting.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Exposure to the sun can lead to skin cancer, and skin cancer, especially melanoma, can kill. The incidence of it in the UK has grown significantly in the last 15 to 20 years. Can the Minister make sure of two things? First, can we get rid of VAT on good-quality sunscreen so that it is cheaper and available to more people? Secondly, can we make sure that anybody who works in our emergency services, including all the police and the police officers working here outside the building, have free sunscreen?
Kit Malthouse
At last, a constructive question. The hon. Gentleman raises two important points, and I will certainly take them away and reassure myself that they are both being addressed.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Many of us are very concerned about our ambulance services, which were already working under extreme pressure before this heatwave. All 10 of the mainland England ambulance services are on maximum alert, and we hear tales of ambulances queueing outside accident and emergency for hours on end with patients sweltering in the extreme heat, which must surely make their condition much worse. Can the Secretary of State assure me that there is somebody in the Cabinet who has responsibility for co-ordinating all the Departments to ensure that the ambulance services in England get the maximum assistance at this time?
Kit Malthouse
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is about to make a statement on exactly that issue, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will stay in the Chamber for that. The Secretary of State and I have been reassuring ourselves about the co-ordination and resources that are available. I think the number of personnel in the ambulance services is up 40% over the last few years, and £150 million has been put in to help them to cope with the pressures at the moment. The Secretary of State will have more to say about that imminently.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
As the planet is heating up, our infrastructure is melting down. Trains today are on go-slow, and tomorrow they will not run at all. At what temperature is our vital infrastructure, including our transport infrastructure, designed to operate, and when will it be resilient to future heatwaves?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady thinks she is asking a simple question but, as I said earlier, it is actually quite a complicated one. For example, the mitigations that we put in place on the railways to deal with extreme heat may cause problems when it gets cold. Dealing with both those issues is an engineering feat that I am afraid is beyond me here at the Dispatch Box. One thing we need to do over the next 48 hours is to learn about exactly the kind of impact she is talking about. We all hope that the system will perform well, but given that if we hit the record we will never have experienced these temperatures before, we just need to be cautious and learn from the experience.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I thank everyone working in our frontline infrastructure services that have enabled us to get here today. I also thank the people I passed at an ungodly hour this morning, as I was on my way to the station, who are providing security at the Commonwealth games bowls venue in Leamington. The Minister says the Government are focused on this crisis, but how is it that frontline workers, on whom we depend, are showing up to do their job when the Prime Minister seems to be hidden away in a Chequers fridge?
Kit Malthouse
That is another completely unfair question and a misunderstanding of Cobra. It is my job to chair that committee, to co-ordinate the civil contingencies secretariat, which sits in my Department, and then to brief the Prime Minister. That is exactly what I did at 8 o’clock yesterday morning.
I am afraid this question feels like a political attempt to create an air of panic about the next 36 hours. Indeed, it seems like a politically motivated assault on the Prime Minister, which is completely unfair. He has been in touch with our work to co-ordinate across all the nations of the United Kingdom, and I am sure he will continue to do so.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Martin Luther King once said:
“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
On that note, and with London boiling, I ask the Minister for his thoughts on the Tory leadership candidates who seek to hold back our commitments on net zero.
Kit Malthouse
Obviously, that is not within my ministerial remit but, as far as I can see, they are all fine, upstanding people who take climate change seriously. I would be happy to serve under any of them, particularly given that I have been a proponent of the hydrogen economy for more than 20 years. Whoever becomes leader, I hope they will drive forward that aspect of our climate change work.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
With forest fires across Europe, and with temperatures set to exceed 40° for the first time, what more evidence do we need that the climate emergency is here? Yet the Minister’s answers suggest that he and his Government are still in denial about the very real emergency we face. This Government are still building new homes that are prone to overheating and they are still not investing in a proper retrofit strategy. When will this Government take climate change seriously?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady is living in an alternative universe, as this is the Government who legislated for net zero and who fought tooth and nail at COP26. How short memories are about what we saw at that global conference in Glasgow, where my right hon. Friend the COP26 President fought tooth and nail with some of the world’s biggest polluters to keep 1.5° alive. When we have these debates in the Chamber, I wish at least some credit were given for the work that has been done, at the same time as challenging us on the work we are doing.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
If maximum indoor temperatures are good enough for workers in the United States, Germany and Spain, why not have those protections for British workers?
Kit Malthouse
Employers already have an obligation to make sure temperatures at work are maintained at a reasonable level for the circumstances. That will vary from workplace to workplace, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know as a working man. There is a lot we can improve in our work and employment regulation but, at the moment, the law is pretty specific about where responsibility should lie.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I also thank the Minister for his answers. Does the NHS 111 system, so effectively used at the height of the covid crisis to liaise with GP surgeries, have capacity to ring the vulnerable and the elderly at this time to provide advice to deal with the heatwave, as they may not have access to internet advice and many will not venture out to buy newspapers, which hopefully will be used to share information during this very warm weather?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, and I have specifically asked all Secretaries of State to identify particular channels of communication that might be used to target the most vulnerable groups, and it is not just the national health service. Train operating companies, for example, know who holds particular concession cards, and local authorities and the third sector are often able to communicate. We need to gently alert the whole population that we should look out for each other, and people in specific vulnerable groups must be able to get the advice and support they need, if and when they need it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.
Ambulance Pressures
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
Following the announcement by the Met Office on Friday of a red warning for extreme heat, I would like to update the House on the impact of extreme weather on health and care, the current covid infection situation and our plans for covid and flu vaccines this autumn.
This is the first time in its history that the Met Office has issued a red warning for extreme heat. The warning covers today and tomorrow. In addition, the UK Health Security Agency has issued its highest heat alert. Its level 4 alert, issued to health and care bodies, means that the heat poses a danger to all of us, not just high-risk groups. Although for many the risk from this heat can be mitigated by simple, common-sense steps, the extreme temperature poses a particular risk in respect of cardiovascular conditions, including heart attacks and strokes. Level 4 does not change the contingency plans in place across the health system, only their likelihood.
We have taken a number of steps in response. Cobra has convened several times, including over the weekend and earlier today, to co-ordinate every part of the Government’s response to this emergency, and I have held a series of meetings with the chief executives of ambulance trusts to discuss the specific measures that they are taking. Steps include increasing the numbers of call handlers; extra capacity for ambulances; and extra support for fleets, including the buddy system, so that calls can be diverted to another trust if there are delays in the area people are calling from. We have held numerous meetings with NHS leaders, including the chief executive of the NHS and her senior team, to continue to implement their long-standing heatwave plans. We had a further meeting again this morning. Meanwhile, ministerial colleagues have continued to liaise with our local resilience forums to co-ordinate across both health and social care.
Even before this heatwave, ambulance services in England have been under significant pressure from increased demand, just as they have across the United Kingdom. The additional pressure on our healthcare system from covid-19, especially on accident and emergency services, has increased the workload of ambulance trusts; increased the average length of hospital stays; and contributed to a record number of calls. Taken together, that has caused significant pressures, which are now being compounded by this extreme heat.
We are taking action in a range of areas. In May, NHS England published a tender for auxiliary ambulances to provide national surge capacity to support ambulance responses during the period of increased pressure. Alongside measures in ambulance trusts to assist with call handling and capacity, NHS hospital trusts are taking steps to address handover delays, in the interests of patient safety. On Friday, the NHS medical director, Steve Powis, and the chief nursing officer, Ruth May, wrote to the chief executives of NHS trusts, ambulance trusts and integrated care boards setting out some of the urgent interventions we need to make; most significantly the focus was on improved ambulance handovers and increased hospital bed capacity.
On ambulance handovers, we are asking health leaders to look again at the balance of risks across the system. We know that leaving vulnerable people in the community would have serious implications for patient safety. Equally, we know that keeping people in ambulances for too long carries other risks, especially from heat. NHS leaders are therefore asking hospital trusts to create additional space for new patients in their units. That may involve the creation of observation areas or exploring ways to add additional beds elsewhere in hospitals, including by adjusting staffing ratios where necessary, as we did during covid, and working to identify areas to mitigate additional workload, such as through greater support on wards with pharmacy and administration.
The NHS is executing its urgent and emergency care recovery 10-point action plan, which includes action across urgent, primary and community care to better manage emergency care demand and capacity. The NHS medical director and chief nursing officer both recognise that this will place an additional burden on some staff, so they are asking trusts to increase efforts on staff wellbeing and support. Alongside the measures being taken by the ambulance services and NHS trusts, the UK Health Security Agency is leading on public health comms to reduce the burden on NHS staff by making sure that we do not create unnecessary demand. We can do that by following the common-sense public health guidance and by looking out for others, in particular the elderly and the vulnerable.
With services under so much pressure, we must make sure that 999 calls are reserved for life-threatening emergencies. We must also consider what advice we can get through other services such as NHS 111, NHS online resources and local pharmacists. In addition to the immediate steps to mitigate the pressures on 999 calls, ambulance services and adult social care, we will keep building on our operational response, with particular attention to discharge and expanding on our pockets of best practice.
That is particularly pertinent, given the current levels of covid, which continue to rise. The latest data from the Office for National Statistics shows that the percentage of people testing positive for covid continued to increase across the UK. In England, an estimated one in 19 people tested positive in the week to 6 July, compared with an estimated one in 25 during the previous week, with more than 13,000 patients admitted to hospitals with covid-19.
Given those pressures and the expected pressures this autumn and winter from respiratory viruses, we are taking important steps to further align our offers on covid and flu. On Friday, I accepted the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s recommendations for a covid-19 autumn booster programme, focusing on vulnerable cohorts, including everyone aged over 50. At the same time, I took the decision that we should keep offering flu jabs to more cohorts than we did before the pandemic. Taken together, this will reduce the number of people getting seriously ill this autumn and winter, easing pressure on the NHS at a critical time. Vaccines have always been, and continue to be, one of the best protections we have, both for ourselves and for the NHS.
From this heatwave to the foreseeable pressures in autumn and winter, I will continue to work closely with colleagues across health and social care, as well as with Members across the House, to ensure that we can address the challenges ahead. I commend this statement to the House.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement and welcome him to his new role. It would have been helpful if, ahead of the current temperatures, he had responded to our urgent question last week, but I am glad that he is here now.
The Secretary of State claims that everything is in hand, but I know from my own experience and that of colleagues across the country that that is far from the truth. We have already seen ambulance wait times soar and pressure on staff spiral, all while the NHS struggles to find the essential staff needed to deliver patient care. I am sure that everyone across the House will agree that our frontline workers are truly amazing. But if nurses and doctors are so overworked and do not have the time and resources to take care of themselves in this heat, the care that they can give patients will be impacted. The Government must step up and show the urgency that this crisis demands.
The Secretary of State talks of creating additional space for new patients in hospitals. How will that happen—with what money, what resources and what staff? Will the Government try to call those new hospitals, too? Is not the reality that creating capacity elsewhere in hospital really means patients being left in corridors on trolleys or in car parks? Can he assure us today that that will not be the case?
Under the Conservatives, the NHS is simply struggling to cope. A record 6.6 million people are waiting for NHS treatment—and they are waiting longer than ever before, often in pain and discomfort. The people in our thoughts this afternoon are those waiting in queues outside hospitals in ambulances, with soaring temperatures and no air conditioning. If it were dogs or cattle, it would be against the law, but these are people in tropical heat unable to enter hospitals. People with conditions triggered by excessive heat are unable to get an ambulance, because ambulances are logjammed outside A&E. Will the Secretary of State apologise to them and their families?
This situation is impacting mental health, too. People attending A&E experiencing a mental health crisis cannot get a bed in a psychiatric hospital, so they wait in A&E, some of them for more than three days. Why? Because the Government have spent the past decade cutting a quarter of mental health beds.
I worked in A&E over this weekend and saw the amazing work being done by staff to prepare for the record heat. The heatwave and surge in covid cases are putting additional pressures on the NHS. I am glad that the Secretary of State recognised that in his statement. Without doubt, 12 years of Conservative mismanagement and underfunding have left our health service unable to cope, which not only has an impact on patients but hurts staff. Staff morale is at rock bottom. Is it any wonder that 5.7 million days were lost to mental ill health in the NHS last year?
Last week, the Minister of State claimed that the Government had procured a £30 million contract for an auxiliary ambulance service, but, moments later, it was revealed that it was yet to be awarded. Can the Health Secretary confirm whether the Minister of State has issued a correction yet?
On Wednesday, ambulance trusts were placed on their highest possible alert level. A national emergency was declared on Friday and, over the weekend, hospitals were scrambling to increase capacity. Why then has it taken until today for the Health Secretary to step up and show leadership? Can he tell us who he met over the weekend? I do not mean at Chequers; I mean from the NHS. Can he also tell us why the Prime Minister did not think it necessary to chair Cobra today? Just when we thought irony had reached a peak, the Prime Minister spent the weekend partying when he should have been dealing with a health emergency. Has the Secretary of State spoken to the Prime Minister today? The Health Secretary has been too slow. The Prime Minister has not even bothered to turn up and the Government have gone AWOL.
If the Government will not step up now, then Labour will. As temperatures reach a record high, all we are getting from the Government is more hot air. This is a crisis. The country has one message for Ministers: stop squabbling and plotting, do your jobs and get a grip.
Steve Barclay
Let me start with the area on which the hon. Lady was correct, which is that I recognise the increased pressure on ambulances and hospitals. That is why we put in place the long-established contingency plans. Since the heatwave in Paris in 2003, it is the case that each year in May, we put in place our heatwave plans. That is what has been activated. Those plans were refreshed as recently as two months ago and sit alongside the work that has been done on urgent and emergency care, including the 10-point action plan that was set out last September.
The hon. Lady is right: the House as a whole will recognise the significant pressure on the system, which is why we are taking the steps from our contingency plans. It is also why we have put in specific funding, such as: the additional £150 million of support targeted at the ambulance service; an additional £50 million for 111 calls to build capacity; and as she said, an additional £30 million for auxiliary ambulances, which is what the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), was referring to in the House last week.
The Met Office and the UK Health Security Agency went to level 4 on Friday. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I updated the House on the first available sitting day after that. The irony will not be lost on the House that this issue is seen as so important that the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has failed to turn up to this statement in the middle of a heatwave. [Interruption.] Well, he is not here, which speaks for itself.
The hon. Lady also suggested that these challenges, which are being faced across Europe as a whole, were in some way due to the overall investment in the NHS. I remind the House that, to take the resource departmental expenditure limit alone, RDEL in 2010 was just under £99 billion and last year it was £150 billion. That is a good indication of the significant funding. We could also come on to capital investment, not least with the 40 hospitals programme, part of a £22 billion package to 2030, which underscores this Government’s commitment to investing in our NHS—an investment that, most recently, the Labour party voted against when we brought it to the House.
The hon. Lady asks about an apology for operational levels of performance. I do not know whether she is asking for that apology from the Welsh Government or just from the English Government. She may want to clarify that, given the performance of the Welsh ambulance service under the Welsh Government.
On the hon. Lady’s point about auxiliary, the Minister of State, Department for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, said in her statement that we had seen improvements in May. I referred to that as context, but on auxiliary in particular I can clarify for the House that a contract is being procured for auxiliary ambulance services and is expected to be concluded shortly.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked what meetings I have held over the less than two weeks that I have been in post. I am happy to share with the House that I have been on visits to four different hospitals, in Whipps Cross, Hillingdon, King’s Lynn and Bedford; I have been out on two different ambulance shifts, been to three different ambulance centres, been out to see GPs to look at boosting access to their services and been to look at life sciences. I have been engaging, and that sits alongside, for example, the meeting with chief execs of ambulance trusts on Saturday, Cobra on Saturday and other such meetings that I have had in the course of my duties.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the Prime Minister’s engagement. Just as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out that he was engaging with the Prime Minister in his role chairing Cobra as Minister for the Cabinet Office, I am happy to confirm to the House that I also engaged with the Prime Minister over the weekend, updating him on the health plans we have put in place. He has been closely engaged on the contingency we have put in place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, Jeremy Hunt.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking up his post as Health Secretary. Since no one ever thanks you for doing that job, I thank him for doing this tough job. I am delighted that someone with ministerial experience in the Department of Health, who therefore knows what he is talking about from the outset, is doing the job. I welcome his saying in his statement that the ambulance service is under pressure not just because of the heatwave. Does he agree that one of the main reasons for that pressure is that hospitals find it difficult to discharge patients who are fit to discharge into the social care system, and that it is financial madness to look after someone in a hospital at £300 a day when the social care system can often do it at £50 a day? Will he, in his new role, finish the job and put in place a 10-year plan for the social care system and the funding for local authorities needed to go with it?
Steve Barclay
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that warm welcome. I was Minister of State when he was Secretary of State, and hugely valued the expertise, diligence and insight that he brought in that role, which provide useful context as I take on my new duties. He is absolutely right; indeed, he will recall, in 2018, looking in detail at delayed discharge, and work on that key issue continues. For example, on 1 July the NHS launched a 100-day sprint looking at all the known interventions. One issue that he and I have discussed in the past is how to socialise best practice and industrialise innovation at scale, and we are looking specifically at that. There is also a call for expressions of interest in pioneer science to better use tech and innovation on delayed discharge, and of course there is £2.6 billion of investment in the better care fund to support that integration work through the integrated care boards.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Although I welcome the additional resource in response to the heatwave, it is simply not enough. Does the Secretary of State agree that until the Government address the systematic problems in social care to ensure that it is properly funded and people can be discharged quickly into the community, and we no longer see the revolving door service that is proving so damaging in the sector, we will not truly be able to reduce the pressures on the ambulance service?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady brings great practical insight on these issues from her profession as a nurse. The point she raises, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), is absolutely right—delayed discharge has long been a key issue. That is why we have made the tough decisions we have on national insurance and why we brought forward the changes on integrated care boards. It is an area of common ground across the House that we need to work better to address delayed discharge, which blocks the pipe and, in turn, delays ambulance handovers and causes problems at an earlier stage. It is a key issue. I have set out a number of practical measures that we are taking, and further work is ongoing.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
On Friday afternoon, I spent a shift with the A&E staff at the fantastic Worthing Hospital, which is clearly being impacted, in particular, by older people affected by the heat. The staff said to me—the Chairman of the Health Committee mentioned this—that more than 15% of the beds are being occupied by people medically fit to be discharged. They also said that a huge amount of their time is being taken up by people with mental health problems, including those being brought in by the police, most inappropriately. What more can be done to make sure that people with mental illness are being looked after away from A&E departments, as is far more appropriate, and to speed up the process of freeing up those beds?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on mental health and where a patient is violent, as I saw for myself on my visit to Bedford, for example, that can be unsettling for A&E. I am happy to have further conversations with him on what measures can be taken. The fact is there is no single intervention in this space; it is a question of looking at the integrated approach. That is what the call for evidence is about. Also key is understanding the data and seeing where it can better target action on areas such as mental health that can have a disproportionate impact.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
It is absolutely right that we limit the amount of time that patients must spend in the back of ambulances, and I welcome that measure, but it is putting intolerable pressure on hospitals. This morning, health leaders told me that they simply do not have the space or the staff, and the one thing they need in the next few hours is more staff. Can the Secretary of State commit himself to ensure that in the next few hours there are no financial or other barriers to the NHS being able to access more NHS bank staff, paramedics and ambulance drivers from the fire service, and, if necessary, from the military?
Steve Barclay
The principle of subsidiarity is that, as part of the extreme heat plans, local trusts make decisions locally on targeting resource, whether that has an impact on outpatients or other services, to meet the increased pressure. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is significant increased pressure, as we see in the call volumes coming in to 999 and 111. Part of the contingency plans that are in place is to surge resource, but it is also partly about being clear where risk best sits. At the heart of the letter from NHS medical director Stephen Powis on Friday was the importance of not pushing risk out into the community where it is an unmet need, or into the ambulance, where it is best that patients are, but having that risk more on the ward, where a patient is known and can receive care. Local contingency plans are in place to allocate resource to meet that.
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I pay tribute to all my Mid Sussex constituents on the frontline of all our emergency services in this extreme heat. They are absolutely continuing their heroic efforts, whether on the NHS backlog, managing discharges, as we have heard, or managing the impact of covid. Following recent media reports, will the Secretary of State note the constraints in certain ambulances, which my constituents have also raised, with cabs being too small and seatbelt use impacted for those over 6 feet tall? The impact of those new ambulances is on the agenda at a meeting for West Sussex MPs with SECAmb—South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Trust—this Friday.
Steve Barclay
First, I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of the local staff in her ambulance trust. She raises an important point about the fleet, and I was very interested in this issue four years ago when I was ambulance trust Minister and discovered that there were, I think, 32 different types of ambulance. When I was out with crews over the past fortnight, one of the issues we discussed was the merits of tailgates so that people are not suffering work absence and musculoskeletal injuries because they are trying to push heavy loads on to an ambulance. I am interested in exploring with her and colleagues how we get the right standardisation and the right fleet in place. Indeed, we have been targeting additional money to support that work.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Since March, West Midlands ambulance service has been on the highest level of alert, and I understand that it was joined by the other ambulance services across England last week. In May, Mark Docherty, the director of nursing for West Midlands ambulance service, predicted that the service would collapse by 17 August—that is a month away from now—if hours lost by crews delayed outside hospitals kept increasing, which of course they have. Can the Secretary of State give some specific answer on what he is doing to address the issues in the west midlands, and also in our care homes, which are a root problem of trying to get people out of hospitals?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman is right that the west midlands in particular has been under significant pressure, and 111 ambulance service response times are significantly challenged, which is driven by wider system pressure and delayed handing over of patients. The measures taken through the national support that is going in include handover delay improvements, on which works is taking place across all integrated care boards. NHS England has allocated an additional £150 million to support the system, and an extra £20 million of capital is going into fleet. Given that I am new in post, I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss any specific issues about the West Midlands ambulance service’s performance.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new role and say how important, given this particular crisis, his previous experience as Minister of State for Health is? He took over that role from me, and he had ministerial responsibility for ambulances.
On Friday, I attended an ambulance summit with other Shropshire and Telford MPs, West Midlands ambulance service and NHS leaders in Shropshire, where we were told that one of the critical issues in ambulance response is the handover wait times at hospitals. Royal Shrewsbury Hospital was averaging two and a half hours for handover in the first two weeks of July, and the Princess Royal Hospital in Telford was at three hours.
The problem is not so much conveyance by ambulance because it is hard to reach patients, but ambulatory walk-ins at our hospitals increasing the volumes of patients being seen in A&E. The problem with that increase in patient volume is patient flow and discharge at the far end. May I suggest that the quick win would be to increase resources for social care, particularly for domiciliary care workers who at present, particularly in rural areas, have to pay for their own transport to get from one patient to another? If we could improve those conditions, it would boost the ability to discharge patients.
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend, partly through the direct experience he brings to these issues, highlights the integrated nature of the challenge we face and in particular the importance of getting the right domiciliary care and care home support in place. Part of that challenge in the coming weeks, ahead of any autumn and winter pressure, will be to understand what the capacity is and what the constraints on it are, so that through the integrated care boards we can better focus on unlocking that capacity to relieve the pressure on ambulance handovers, as he sets out.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Older and more vulnerable patients can become medically compromised very quickly in extreme heat. In Yorkshire, category 1 calls can be waiting for 9.5 minutes over the expected time, category 2 calls can be waiting for 18 minutes over, and those with other medical conditions can be waiting 2 hours 41 minutes over. People clearly need support and assessment far earlier. What is the Secretary of State doing to deploy first responders in such areas so that people can get a medical assessment and early intervention far quicker?
Steve Barclay
I broadly agree with the hon. Lady on providing targeted support, particularly to those in domiciliary care; we are working with those in primary care on that. In coming days, that will happen specifically through local resilience forums, but in the medium term it will be more through the integrated care boards. That is part of a wider package of support measures that need to be put in place. It will include working with primary care, looking at mental health support, and looking at what can be done to raise productivity through better use of innovation and technology. We will look at all the interventions available across the board to assist us in dealing with the pressures that she highlights.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I spent this weekend on duty, in my role with the Yorkshire ambulance service. I remind my right hon. Friend of the important work and extra resilience that community first responders will provide in the next few days, as they are stepped up and attend the most serious 999 calls. The reality is that even before this situation, when attending very serious cases, we were often waiting much longer than we did in the past for back-up from the crew. Will he look at a model that I have pushed before: the advanced paramedic model, which gives paramedics more clinical confidence to discharge patients to their home, and so reduces demand on hospitals?
Steve Barclay
I am happy to look at that, and I thank my hon. Friend for his service locally. I am keen to follow up on his point, because it is absolutely right. From the feedback from ambulance trusts so far, it seems that category 2 average response times were broadly stable at the weekend, but how we triage, how we categorise calls, and what additional support can be given by considering the skills mix are all factors in improving performance.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I also attended the meeting on Friday morning about Shropshire’s health crisis, and I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) on that. Quite apart from this week’s heatwave, there is increased demand on Shropshire’s ambulance service, and the local team are clearly working hard to find solutions, but I did not feel reassured that they had any quick fixes for this crisis. One of their big problems is with recruiting social care workers; the team say that they have never seen a market like it. What is the Secretary of State doing to address the critical workforce problem in social care, not only in rural areas but across the country?
Steve Barclay
Through initiatives such as the better care fund and the £2.6 billion of investment, we are looking at how to allocate funds in an integrated way. That requires better integration of data between the care sector and the NHS, and that is an area that I am keen to explore.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
I recently had the good fortune to spend a few hours with an ambulance driver from Ashfield who drives for the East Midlands ambulance service. He told me that he is so frustrated, because a lot of the time, the ambulance gets to the caller, and the person simply does not need an ambulance. He raised this with his bosses, but they are scared to admit that. Is it not about time that somebody from the Department of Health and Social Care had an honest conversation with the people who actually do the graft—the drivers and the ambulance staff?
Steve Barclay
I know from conversations in recent days that there has been significant work around dispatch, the assessment of calls and the role of clinicians, particularly in 111. There is further work with frequent callers. I went out with the London ambulance service, and one of our visits was to someone who had had 140 ambulances visit him over the past year and a half. There are initiatives, and work going on, on how we assess calls and get dispatch right, but I am very happy to take forward the comments that my hon. Friend makes.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new post.
The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee raised the question of what happens when people are ready to go into the community, but there is nowhere there for them to go. There is an even worse example: people who have major brain injuries, for instance as a result of a road traffic accident. The ambulance staff will get them to the major trauma centre, which will save their life, but if they are to get back their life with any degree of independence, they need a prolonged period of neuro-rehabilitation. Some of that will happen in hospital, but across large swathes of the country, there is nothing—absolutely no provision—outside hospital. With any other condition, we would not expect treatment, once started, not to be finished. How can we make sure that neuro-rehabilitation services, which give people back their life, are available across the whole country, and that there is no postcode lottery?
Steve Barclay
I know the hon. Gentleman is co-chairing, with the Minister for Care and Mental Health, a strategy board looking at these issues, and I would be very keen to explore that with him in due course. There is an opportunity—not just from a health perspective, but from a levelling up perspective—to look at the pockets where there are gaps in the way he sets out, and to see how we can get better coverage geographically as well as address the very real health needs he identifies.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
My constituents attribute the deteriorating response times in Rugby to the decision of the West Midlands ambulance service to close our community ambulance station at the Hospital of St Cross—a decision taken without reference to doctors, councillors, residents or the local MP. Does the Secretary of State agree that decisions of that nature should be made only after consultation and with the support of local stakeholders?
Steve Barclay
I do not know the specific circumstances of the case my hon. Friend highlights, but in general good consultation and engagement with stakeholders will of course lead to better and more informed decision making. Where decisions have been taken and the outcomes proceed in a sub-optimal way, I know from my knowledge of my hon. Friend that he will make such a case in the strongest terms.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It is worth remembering that the 2010 to 2015 Conservative Government took £6 billion out of social care, so it is no wonder that we are facing a logjam. Since 2015, not once have the Government hit their four-hour target at A&E, and it is down to less than 72% on average right now. This logjam is created by the Conservative Government’s mismanagement of our national health service, so what is the Secretary of State going to do to get back to the four-hour target for A&E?
Steve Barclay
This Government are investing in our NHS. That is why the resource departmental expenditure limit, which in 2010 was £99 billion, went up last year to £150 billion. It is why we are investing more than £10 billion in capital this year alone. It is why the NHS will get an uplift of about £38 billion over the five years from 2019-20 to 2024-25, and it is why this Government have invested in our 40 hospitals programme as part of a £22 billion commitment.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
We have seen some serious issues with the West Midlands ambulance service and congestion at the Royal Stoke University Hospital, and it is only a few years ago that we saw people dying in the corridors at that hospital. Will my right hon. Friend look at what we can do to address these issues, and ensure that we do not just move people from queuing outside the hospital back on to high-risk corridors?
Steve Barclay
That specific point about where risk best sits within the system was addressed in the letter from the NHS medical director on Friday. Of course, the best way of addressing that risk is to address the issue of delayed discharge. We are getting people out of hospital through initiatives such as the better care fund, the £2.6 billion of investment and the use of integrated care boards. Their use will enable us to take a more integrated approach to unblocking those who are in hospital unnecessarily, which is not only very expensive but fundamentally bad for their care. It is important that we address delayed discharge as a key priority.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his responses to the questions that have been asked. To give an example that I hope will be helpful to him—this is a devolved matter—when one of my constituents fell and badly hurt her leg last week on rocks offshore, she was able to send a photograph of her injury, and as a result an ambulance was dispatched urgently and she was rescued. My concern is about those who are not high-tech enough to send photographs of injuries to prove that they are ambulance-worthy. Can I ask the Secretary of State how it would be possible to triage calls in a way that does not put pressure on people, but addresses the potential misuse of emergency ambulance requests?
Steve Barclay
I am happy to look at any specific issues that flow from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency case. The more we can use tech and innovation better to address those issues at pace, the more that will ultimately lead to better patient outcomes.
Point of Order
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 22 June at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister agreed to look at the urgent case of Afghan nationals who I am trying to help, and whose lives are at daily risk; they include Chevening alumni. I immediately sent him the details of our four cases, and I have chased him repeatedly and asked a written question. Today I did receive a reply, but it simply said that a reply would be sent “in due course.” Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, on what avenue I might take to elicit a serious response, given that it makes a mockery of promises made at the Dispatch Box at PMQs if there is still no response more than three weeks later?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. Although the Chair is not responsible for ministerial answers or the actions taken following them, Ministers should of course follow up on the commitments they make in this House. Not to do so is discourteous, especially when the cases concerned are urgent. Those on the Government Front Bench, including the Prime Minister, will have heard what the hon. Member said, and I hope they will achieve a quick response for her.
Bills Presented
Data Protection and Digital Information Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Nadine Dorries, supported by Secretary Priti Patel, Secretary Steve Barclay, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Matt Warman, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Stephen McPartland, Tom Pursglove, and Heather Wheeler, presented a Bill to make provision for the regulation of the processing of information relating to identified or identifiable living individuals; to make provision about services consisting of the use of information to ascertain and verify facts about individuals; to make provision about access to customer data and business data; to make provision about privacy and electronic communications; to make provision about services for the provision of electronic signatures, electronic seals and other trust services; to make provision about the disclosure of information to improve public service delivery; to make provision for the implementation of agreements on sharing information for law enforcement purposes; to make provision about the keeping and maintenance of registers of births and deaths; to make provision about information standards for health and social care; to establish the Information Commission; to make provision about oversight of biometric data; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 143).
Ministerial Competence (External Review) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Paul Maynard presented a Bill to make provision for an annual appraisal of the performance and competence of individual Ministers, conducted outside the Cabinet Office, to inform the Prime Minister in recommending ministerial appointments; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 144).
Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
00:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 349 / Noes: 238 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey).
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I beg to move,
That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.
I have no idea why the Leader of the Opposition has insisted that we must have a confidence motion today, when we could be sparing people from online harms—[Interruption.] That’s what he wanted. We could be fixing the defects in the Northern Ireland protocol, ending pointless barriers to trade in our country—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. It might be helpful to say that it is the Government who put down the motion.
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition wants one, Mr Speaker, and since Labour Members want one and it is the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s constitutional prerogative, we will comply and we will win.
Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition why I believe that this is one of the most dynamic Governments of modern times, not just overcoming adversity on a scale we have not seen for centuries, but delivering throughout adversity. If he wants evidence of the temper and mettle of this Government, I remind him of how we began, when Parliament was deadlocked and he was shadow Brexit Secretary. Labour were the first Opposition in history to be absolutely petrified of calling a general election, and when they finally capitulated and agreed to submit to the verdict of the people, we sent the great blue Tory ferret so far up their left trouser leg that they could not move. We won the biggest Conservative victory since 1987 and the biggest share of the vote since 1979. We won seats they never dreamed of losing, from Wrexham to Workington, and from Bishop Auckland to Barrow. We turned Redcar bluecar, we saw 54 seats go straight from Labour to Tory, and we won by 80 seats. Then we worked flat out to repay that trust. With iron determination we saw off Brenda Hale and we got Brexit done. And although the rejoiners and the revengers were left plotting and planning and biding their time—I will have more to say about the events of the last few weeks and months in due course—we delivered on every single one of our promises.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I will not give way; I am going to make some progress.
We took back control of our money, we took back control of our borders and we installed a points-based system for immigration. We took back control of our laws. We on this side of the House took back the sovereign right of the British people to determine their own laws and their own future in Parliament, and for that I say to colleagues on the Government Benches: your place in history is secure. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: it will never be forgotten that 48 times he tried to overturn the will of the people—48 times he tried to strike down the biggest expression of popular will. It will be remembered in the history of this country. Be in no doubt that if he were ever to come to power with his hopeless coalition of Liberal Democrats and Scottish nationalists, he would try to do so again, at the drop of a hat.
It was only a month or so later that the Government were forced to show their resolve again, when we began to lose thousands of lives in the worst pandemic for a century; a global pandemic whose origins we did not fully understand and were nothing to do with the British people—if anything, they were the result of distant misbehaviour involving bats or pangolins—and whose spread was appallingly difficult to manage. Through wave after wave, this Government never gave up, and thanks to the courage and indomitable resilience of the British people, we protected our NHS and saved thousands of lives.
We were finally rescued by the genius of British scientists, by a vaccine that was licensed faster than any vaccine in the world and by a roll-out that was faster than that of any comparable country—faster, of course, than we would have achieved if we had listened to the Leader of the Opposition. It was so fast that the EU Commission actually tried to expropriate 5 million doses of Astra to try to slow us down, it can be told —[Interruption.] Yes, “shame” is right. And still they failed. In so far as the Opposition came up with any ideas at all, they quaveringly called for more lockdowns. We trusted to British science and the vaccine roll-out. They vacillated, we vaccinated, and we vaccinated so fast that we came out of lockdown quicker than any other European country. When I look at that achievement, Mr Speaker, I tell you I have confidence in this Government and in what they can do.
As a direct result of the actions of the Government, we had the fastest growth in the G7 last year, which is why we are able now to help people across the country with the latest challenge: the global inflation in energy prices triggered partly by post-covid blockages but made far worse by Putin’s vile war in Ukraine. It is because we have sensibly managed the economy that we have the fiscal firepower to give £1,200 to the 8 million most vulnerable households and £400 to help every household with the cost of energy. We can do that because our economic fundamentals are strong, with British companies hiring talent up and down the country, with unemployment at or near a 50-year low, with 620,000 more people in payroll employment than there were before the pandemic began and youth unemployment at or near a 45-year low, and with people coming off benefits and getting into work, including 500,000 just in the six months to June.
That is the fundamental difference between this Government and the Opposition: we believe that the best answer to poverty is not benefits—that is what they think—but the security, happiness and dignity that goes with a job. I am proud of what we have done throughout the last three years to champion working people: lifting the living wage, cutting tax for those on universal credit, and just in the last couple of weeks, the biggest tax cut in 10 years for the vast majority of people on lower incomes who pay national insurance contributions.
I will give you a fact, Mr Speaker. That is why today, under this Government, the poorer households in this country get more of their income from their earnings, and under Labour they got more of their income from benefits. That is the reality of the difference between them and us. There has never been a Labour Government that left office with unemployment lower than when it came in. That is why I have confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I personally think that our party is making the same mistake the Labour party made when it knifed Tony Blair. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the excess death rates in Europe show that, thanks to his early intervention with the vaccine, fewer people died in the United Kingdom than in the majority of other European countries? And thanks to his intervention, Kyiv is still a part of Ukraine and not a part of Russia.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend very much. He is absolutely right in what he says about the record of the NHS and the record of this country in beating back covid. What a pity it was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, came so many times to this place and said that we had the worst record in Europe. He has never taken it back, Mr Speaker. Perhaps he will do so in the course of the debate to come.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I will give way again in a moment.
In spite of the pandemic, we did not for a moment lose our focus on the huge manifesto commitments we made in 2019, beginning with making our streets safer. With the help of now 13,576 more police—we will hit 20,000 more by 2024—we have rounded up those county lines drugs gangs, 1,500 of them so far, and we will continue. We have taken thousands of knives off the streets of our country using stop and search. I know that people on the Labour Benches oppose stop and search, but I think it is the kindest and most loving thing you can do, when someone is going equipped with a bladed weapon, to take that knife off him. It was by tough policing, giving the police the powers they deserve and putting more out on the street, that we helped to get neighbourhood crime down by 31%.
As we promised, we invested massively in our amazing NHS. We got nurses into hospitals—I think another 10,000 this year on last year—and we are on track to recruit 50,000. We have record numbers of people working now in our NHS tackling the covid backlogs. At the same time, we are getting on with our long-term programme of the improvement of our national health service. The Opposition constantly say that we are not going to build 40 new hospitals. Well, I can tell the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) that we are. They will be done by 2030 and if he is still around in 2024 he will see measurable improvement.
I will tell you something else, Mr Speaker. Seventy-five years after the foundation of the NHS, we have been the first Government to have the nerve and a plan to fix the gulf between the NHS and social care, ending the cruel lottery that brings destitution on families with a member suffering from dementia. Governments promised it for decades; we did it. We are raising the funding to do it, which the Opposition oppose.
Of course, we have been investing massively in our schools and young people, introducing hundreds of thousands of kids—kids who have potential, kids who are in danger of being left behind—to the kind of tutoring that is currently only available to those whose parents can pay for it.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I am going to give way to my former opponent, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for taking a break from his fantasy tour of this country. Could he take one moment to explain why 14 million people in this country are living in poverty, why there are more food banks than there are branches of McDonald’s, why there is a mental health crisis, why big pharma has made so much out of owning the patents of the vaccines, and why his Government are presiding over the enriching of the richest, the impoverishment of the poorest, and the greatest job insecurity in industry after industry? He has created poverty, inequality and insecurity. That is his legacy.
The Prime Minister
I am thrilled to be debating again with the right hon. Gentleman. Since our last encounters, I am proud to tell him that we have got unemployment down to record lows. I know that he would rather have people on benefits, but I do not think that is the way forward. He talks about 14 million people, but let me tell him that 14 million voted for this Conservative Government, and this Conservative Government are undefeated at the polls—never let that be forgotten. At the same time—
The Prime Minister
Just a moment. At the same time, we have been investing massively in schools, making our streets and our communities safer, making our population healthier and ensuring that our kids are literate and numerate at the age of 11—our goal is to get up to 90% by 11, rather than the current 65%.
We have been driven throughout these last three years by a very simple vision: we Conservatives believe that there is genius and talent everywhere and energy and imagination distributed in every corner of this country, but we do not think that is the same for opportunity. Our immense programme of levelling up is driven by the simple mathematical observation that if per capita GDP and productivity were as evenly distributed in the UK as they are in our major competitors, this would be by some way the most prosperous economy in Europe. Of course, it would also be the morally right thing to do. That is why we have kept going with the most colossal infrastructure programme ever seen, with three new high-speed rail lines—and, by the way, how many miles of electrified line did Labour build in its 13 years of office. Does anybody know? Virtually none. We are putting in hundreds of miles of road improvements and massive investments in buses and cycling.
Of course, we gave and are giving people skills, skills, skills. The lifetime skills guarantee means that the Government will support them to get an A-level equivalent skill when they are an adult. We are also giving them the technology to use those skills throughout the country. I am proud to say that gigabit broadband now sprouts through virtually every wainscot. We have gone from 7% to 69% coverage in this brief three years.
It is only by putting in the infrastructure—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) says that they do not have wi-fi in the north. This Government are putting in wi-fi across the whole—[Interruption.] How little she knows of the very area she purports to represent. It is only by putting in the infrastructure that we enable people to live where they want. I am proud that not only have we seen record numbers of homes being built, but last year, there were 400,000 first-time buyers. Unlike the Labour party, we believe in home ownership. We believe in getting people on the property ladder—[Interruption.] You can tell they do not like it, Mr Speaker. The better the infrastructure, the skills and the technology—there were 400,000 first-time buyers—the less intrusive the regulation in our country and the more the investment flows in.
We are seeing huge sums coming in now from the private sector. Every other week, there is another £1 billion unicorn, not just in London, Oxford or Cambridge, but across the whole country. We have more tech investment than France, Germany and Israel combined, and now, in the first quarter of this year, in attracting tech venture capital, we have actually overtaken the Chinese with £12.5 billion coming in.
This Government will continue to make the UK the place to come for the industries and businesses of the future. This year, Newquay will join Cape Kennedy and Baikonur as a functioning spaceport, I am proud to say. For the first time ever, under this Government, a British satellite will be launched into space from Britain. Next year, the spaceport in Shetland will roar into life, thanks to investments from Lockheed Martin and others, as local crofters—I mean humble crofters, almost as humble and local as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford)—have withdrawn their opposition because they can see that it means jobs and growth for their area.
People in this House may not know it, but this Government have made an investment in low earth orbit satellites—hundreds of them. It was a risk, but it has paid off for the taxpayer. Hundreds and hundreds of them are now circling the earth, offering all sorts of opportunities, including the potential for internet connections for the people of sub-Saharan Africa.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is highly unconventional for the Prime Minister to put down a confidence motion in his own Government, although I suppose he is an unconventional person, since only an unconventional man would want the opportunity to speak at his own funeral. Is not the essential problem that despite the litany of what he thinks are his fantasy achievements, the bottom line is that this country is supposed to operate on the good chap theory of government, but it does not operate when there is a bad apple at the core?
The Prime Minister
Look, if the hon. Gentleman is saying that he is going to vote for confidence in this Government, I will certainly welcome his support. What I can tell him is that I believe that the achievements of this Government over the past three years have been very remarkable. As for his personal criticism of me, I am proud of what we have done and I am proud of the way I have been able to offer leadership in difficult times—let me put it that way.
The investment in the low earth orbit satellites has paid off. As I said, people in sub-Saharan Africa now have the chance to get an internet connection. It is a massive, massive success for global Britain. People around the world can now see the renewed ambition of this country, with the record £22 billion that we are investing to become a science superpower again and the new Advanced Research and Invention Agency. At the same time, the scientific solutions that we are providing are helping to solve the fundamental problems facing humanity.
On this sweltering day, let me remind the House that there are very few Governments in the world who could have organised a COP26 summit so far-reaching in its impacts. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) for what he did: committing 90% of the world to net zero by 2050, moving the world beyond the use of coal, moving from fossil-fuelled cars to electric vehicles, planting billions of trees around the world and launching the clean green initiative as we did at Carbis Bay, by which G7 Governments will now leverage the trillions of the private sector to help the developing world to use the clean, green technologies that offer economic as well as environmental salvation.
I think that people around the world can see more clearly than ever before that we have in this country—and, I think, in this House—a renewed willingness as global Britain to stand up for freedom and democracy. There could be no better proof of that than our campaign to help the Ukrainians. If it is true that I am more popular on the streets of Kyiv right now than I am in Kensington, that is because of the foresight and boldness of this Government in becoming the first European country to send the Ukrainians weapons—a decision that was made possible by the biggest investment in defence since the cold war. Although I think that that conflict will continue to be very hard, and our thoughts and prayers must continue to be with the people of Ukraine, I do believe that they must win and that they will win. Although that may, of course, be of massive strategic importance in the face of Putin’s adventurism and aggression, when the people of Ukraine have won it will also be a victory of right over wrong and of good over evil. I think that this Government saw that clearly, saw it whole and saw it faster than many other parts of the world. That is why I have confidence in this Government.
By the way, I have absolutely zero confidence in the Opposition. Eight of them—I never tire of saying this, and everyone must be saying it right up until the general election—eight of them, including the shadow Foreign Secretary, voted to discard this country’s independent nuclear weapon. I do not believe they would have done the same thing in standing up to Putin in a month of Sundays.
Last week I went up in one of our 148 Typhoon fighters, and I flew out over the North sea, over Doggerland. The drowned prairies are now being harvested again with tens of gigawatts of clean green energy. We will have 50 GW of offshore wind by 2050, and thanks to this Government’s activism I am proud to say that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind. I looked down at that ghostly white forest of windmills in the sea, financed with ever growing sums from international investors, and I thought, “This is how we will fix our energy problems; this is how Europe should be ending its dependence on Putin’s gas.” I am proud of the way we have responded to the challenge, with a nuclear reactor every year rather than one every 10 years—or none at all, as was the ridiculous and catastrophic policy of the last Labour Government.
And then the wing commander interrupted me, and for a glorious period I was at the controls of the Typhoon. I did a loop the loop and an aileron roll and a barrel roll, and then—I am coming to the point, Mr Speaker—I handed back the controls. In a few weeks’ time, that is exactly what I will do with this great party of ours. After three dynamic and exhilarating years in the cockpit, we will find a new leader, and we will coalesce in loyalty around him or her, and the vast twin Rolls-Royce engines of our Tory message, our Conservative values, will roar on: strong public services on the left and a dynamic free-market enterprise economy on the right, each boosting the other and developing trillions of pounds of thrust. The reason we will keep winning is that we are the only party that understands the need for both.
Whatever happens in this contest, we will continue to fight for the lowest possible taxes and the lightest possible regulation. The Opposition’s problem is that they would try to fly on one engine, kowtowing to the union barons, endlessly inflicting more tax and more spending, endlessly giving in to the temptation to regulate us back into the orbit of the European Union, and flying round in circles.
Some people will say, as I leave office, that this is the end of Brexit. Listen to the deathly hush on the Opposition Benches! The Leader of the Opposition and the deep state will prevail in their plot to haul us back into alignment with the EU as a prelude to our eventual return. We on this side of the House will prove them wrong, won’t we? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Some people will say that this is the end of our support for Ukraine. [Interruption.] That is exactly the analysis. The champanskoye corks have allegedly been popping in the Kremlin, just as the Islington lefties are toasting each other with their favourite “Keir Royale”. But I have no doubt that whoever takes over in a few weeks’ time will make sure that we keep together the global coalition in support of our Ukrainian friends.
Some people will say—and I think it was the Leader of the Opposition himself who said it—that my departure means the eventual victory of the Labour party. I believe that those on this side of the House will prove the Leader of the Opposition totally wrong, and that in due course we will walk the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras into the capsule at Newquay that I mentioned earlier, and send him into orbit, where he belongs. And I tell the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who speaks for the Scottish nationalists, that it is time for him to take his protein pill and put his helmet on, because I hear it will not be long before his own party is taking him to Shetland and propelling him to the heavens.
This Government have fought some of the hardest yards in modern political history. We have had to take some of the bleakest decisions since the war, and I believe that we got the big calls right. At the end of three years, this country is visibly using its newfound independence to turbocharge our natural advantage as the best place in the world not just to live and to invest but to bring up a family. With a new and incontrovertible spirit of global leadership, I believe that we can look to the future with rock-solid confidence not just in what this Government have done but in what they will do and will continue to do. I commend this motion to the House.
Mr Speaker
I now call the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer, to respond.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
The delusion is never-ending. What a relief for the country that Conservative Members have finally got round to sacking the right hon. Gentleman. In many ways the chaos of the last fortnight is familiar. This is the third Tory leadership contest in six years, the latest bumper summer for graphic designers and brand managers, the latest parade of pretenders promising unfunded tax cuts, the latest set of ministerial jobs handed out on a wink and a shake in return for a nomination, and TV debates so embarrassing that even the contestants are pulling out. Every other year, they switch out a failed Prime Minister. It is like a once-secure premier league side burning through managers as it slides inevitably towards relegation. The end of the season cannot come soon enough.
But besides the déjà vu, things are different this time. David Cameron left office because he lost a referendum. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) left office because her party could not agree on how to leave the EU. There were serious policy and political disagreements, and the Labour party had our own profound disagreements with both former Prime Ministers on how to grow the economy and how to run our public services, but no one seriously disputed that they were fit for office or that they could be trusted to carry out their own—[Interruption.] I suggest that some of those on the Conservative Benches reread their resignation letters. No one seriously disputed that those former Prime Ministers were fit for office, that they could be trusted to carry out their responsibilities, that the information they gave their Ministers was true to the best of their knowledge or that the policies they proposed were the ones that they believed were best for the country. So no one objected to them staying on while a successor was found.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Keir Starmer
Not at the moment.
There are clearly policy disagreements between the Prime Minister and his party. I know that he spent the weekend throwing another party—obviously a very good party, judging by the last 20 minutes—but can I suggest that he uses catch-up TV to see what they have been saying in the leadership debates? The Foreign Secretary, who has now left the Chamber, said the Prime Minister’s economic policy
“is not going to drive economic growth.”
The Minister for Trade Policy, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), said the Government have left public services in a “state of disrepair.” And the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch) said junior Ministers raised concerns about fraud that were ignored and cost the taxpayer £17 billion. This is what that side are saying in the leadership debates. The people behind the Prime Minister are not happy with his record, whatever they say and jeer now.
Unlike his predecessors, this Prime Minister has not been forced out over policy disagreements and, despite the delusions he has fostered in his bunker, he has not been felled by the stampede of an eccentric herd. Instead, he has been forced out in disgrace, judged by his colleagues and peers to be unworthy of his position and unfit for his office. He promoted someone he knew to be a sexual predator. [Interruption.] It might be an idea to listen. And he then denied all knowledge when it inevitably went wrong. He lied to his Ministers about what he knew, and he allowed them to repeat those lies to the country. It is the same pattern of behaviour we saw when he and his mates partied through lockdown, denied it for months and forced his Ministers to repeat those lies until he was found out. He cannot change.
Even last week he was tearing up the rules by insisting that an Opposition motion of no confidence could not be heard. He promoted an ally to the ministerial payroll as she literally gave the public the middle finger. And he appointed a Chancellor with questions to answer about tax avoidance and his personal finances. [Interruption.] They all know—
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Chair has been very clear at times about being conscious of language. From my understanding, the Chancellor has denied that accusation. Perhaps you could guide the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) on how to temper his language.
Mr Speaker
What I will say is that I want everybody to think carefully about what they say in this Chamber and the effect it has on people, which does concern me. Neither the Clerks nor myself can hear a lot of what is being said. Could the House just turn it down so we can hear?
Keir Starmer
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
They all know it cannot go on. Just read their resignation letters. The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) went after saying this is
“The last straw in the rolling chaos”.
The hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) had enough of “defending the indefensible.” And the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) simply said the Prime Minister is an
“apologist for someone who has committed sexual assault”.
When the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) resigned, he accused the Prime Minister of not conducting Government “properly, competently and seriously.” I presume he was talking about their appalling joint economic legacy of the highest inflation and the lowest growth in the G7, leaving us with the highest tax burden since rationing and with diminished public services. That is the record, but the rhetoric does not match it. He suggested the Prime Minister is not prepared to “work hard” or “take difficult decisions,” and he implied that the Prime Minister cannot tell the public the truth. They all read the letter, and they know what he said.
But this week, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) is trying to convince us to ignore all that—apparently, he has changed his mind; asked a straight question, he will not tell his party that the Prime Minister is dishonest. Now he is saying that the Prime Minister is actually a “remarkable” man with “a good heart”. It is pathetic; there can be no one worse placed to rebuild the economy than the man who broke it. There can be no one worse placed to restore trust than the man who propped up this totally untrustworthy Prime Minister.
Keir Starmer
I will make some progress and then I will give way. Instead of rewriting history, Conservative Members need to face up to what they have done—what they have put this country through. Despite knowing exactly who he is, despite knowing that he always puts himself before anyone else, despite knowing that he had been fired from job after job for lying, they elected him to lead their party, and he behaved exactly as everyone feared when he got into Downing Street. He lurched from one scandal to the next; he demeaned his office; and he started to drag everyone and everything down with him. So, belatedly, they found him unfit for office, too untrustworthy for government.
Mr Holden
The right hon. and learned Gentleman sounds as though he is describing his own actions. For year after year, he sat there while the Labour party was found guilty of breaching the law by the Equality and Human Rights Commission on the antisemitism of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not have the courage to stand up at the time for what was right?
Keir Starmer
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman realises why we are having this debate. It is because so many—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Holden, you, quite rightly, asked a question and, like yourself, I would like to hear the answers. Let’s move on.
Keir Starmer
We are having this debate because dozens of Front Benchers resigned their posts because they would not serve this Prime Minister. They are sacking him because he is untrustworthy. That is why we are having this debate. Normally in a debate such as this the Prime Minister asks for a vote of confidence so that he can carry on, but this one—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am very bothered about where this is going. The use of language needs to be brought into a more temperate manner and we need to calm it down. Let’s see how we can try to progress in a more orderly way, while being more temperate in what we are saying.
Keir Starmer
So, Mr Speaker, why are they leaving him with his hands on the levers of power for eight weeks? This is eight weeks where the British public must trust the word of a Prime Minister who has been sacked because he can’t be trusted; eight weeks where Britain will be represented abroad by someone who has lost all respect at home; and eight weeks of a caretaker Government led be an utterly careless Prime Minister. Anyone who thinks that doesn’t matter, and that these are just the quiet summer months when everyone goes to the beach, is in denial about the severity of the challenges our country faces.
The war in eastern Ukraine drags on; the Nord Stream pipeline has been shut down; flights are being cancelled left, right and centre; and Britain is facing an unprecedent heat wave, as our climate changes in front of our very eyes. These are serious challenges—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not think that these are challenges. These are serious issues that will require serious leadership. Hard decisions will have to be made. This is not the summer for Downing Street to be occupied by a vengeful squatter mired in scandal. Every day they leave him there, every hustings they refuse to distance themselves from his appalling behaviour and every vote they cast today to prop him up is a dereliction of duty. It is a reminder that the Prime Minister has only been able to do what he has done because he is enabled by a corrupted Conservative party every step, every scandal and every party along the way.
I know that there has been fearmongering that this motion might lead straight to a general election. Sadly, that is complete nonsense, but you can see why they fear the electorate. After 12 years of failed Tory Government, Britain is stuck—stuck with a low-growth economy; stuck at home, unable to get a passport or a flight; stuck on the phone, trying to get a GP appointment. Our taxes are going up, food and energy bills are out of control, and the public services we rely on have simply stopped working. And every Tory standing to lead their party has given up on trying to defend—[Interruption.] Prime Minister, they have no confidence in you—that is why you are going. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We really are struggling to hear. I want to be able to hear, and then we can make better judgment calls. Both the Clerks and I are struggling. Please, can we calm it down and think about what we are saying?
Keir Starmer
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Britain deserves a fresh start with Labour, free from those who got us stuck in the first place, free from the chaotic Tory party and free from those who propped up this Prime Minister for months and months. And here is the difference: under my leadership, the Labour party has changed, and we are ready to do the same for the country—to get our economy growing, to revitalise our public services, and, after this Prime Minister has damaged everything around him, to clean up politics. This House should make a start by voting no confidence in this Prime Minister this evening.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
In June 2016, there was a vote of no confidence in the then leader of the Labour party. I do not know whether the present leader of the Labour party voted yes or no. If he can remember, did he vote confidence or no confidence in his predecessor?
In 2019, his predecessor moved a motion of no confidence in the Government, saying that the issue should be put to the people. It was put to the people in the 2019 general election, and the present Government came in with a majority of 80.
I have it on reasonable authority that the deputy leader of the Labour party has said today that Boris was, in effect, the magic that helped. [Interruption.] I am glad that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has confirmed that.
The issue before the House now is whether people would have any more confidence in the Labour party becoming a Government, and the answer is no.
In June 2016, when the then leader of the Labour party lost the no confidence vote by 172 votes to 40—the 40 may have included the current Leader of the Opposition—20 of the shadow Cabinet had walked out, but the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) walked in. The interesting question is whether the way in which he has spoken today is part of a leadership bid to take over the Labour party properly rather than just in name.
He describes himself as red and green, but mixing red and green together produces an unpleasant kind of brown. Does he accept that the Labour party is not yet trusted by the British people?
By voting confidence in the Government, this House will be saying, as the British people did in 2019, that we prefer us in government, not them.
That is not to say that the Government have got everything right. If I were taking part in the Thursday Sir David Amess debate, I could list the things on which the Government could make changes.
I want them to drop the privatisation of Channel 4, as there is no point in it, and I want them to reconsider the question of whether the Holocaust Memorial should be in Victoria Tower Gardens. There are a number of other issues that I could take up.
The issue today is: do we want to change the party of Government, and the answer is no. I rest my case there.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I see that the Prime Minister is leaving the Chamber. In this particular case, Prime Minister, leave means leave.
We all know that the Government have spent the past week trying to delay, reword, and, ultimately, avoid this debate, but, as is the way these days, the herd has moved. Today, we finally have a chance to cast our verdict on a failed Prime Minister and a Conservative party that is collapsing before our very eyes. I know the Government want to use this debate as some kind of dignified—although I have not seen any dignity from the Prime Minister this afternoon—obituary for the political legacy of the leader that they buried last week. If the Government are determined to debate the legacy of the Prime Minister, let us allow ourselves the opportunity to be that one thing that he singularly failed to be: let us be very, very honest.
Let us reflect on a man who should never have been put in office in the first place—a man who simply should not be here for a minute longer, because he has demonstrated no dignity in office in the highest office in the land, and he has shown no dignity today in departing. Every single Member of this House needs to ask themselves a very simple question: why on earth does the Prime Minister deserve the dignity of a long goodbye and a seven-week chance to rewrite his own legacy? Apparently, the one and only reason being offered up by Tory MPs to justify keeping him in place is that that is the precedent—that is the way that it works down here. It is the Westminster way. But those citing any kind of precedent have clearly forgotten the exact reason we have been brought to this point, which is that the behaviour of this Prime Minister has no precedent.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am relieved that we can hear the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, and that we no longer have the Prime Minister bawling at those who are speaking as he leaves the Chamber. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what we want over this period of change is dignity? We want dignity in the House and dignity in the country, and we did not see that from the Prime Minister in his behaviour on the Front Bench today.
Mr Speaker
Order. I think I make that decision, and I do not need any recommendations. The behaviour on both sides has not been exceptional today. Come on, Ian.
Ian Blackford
Thank you, Mr Speaker, although I have to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is important. These are matters that are of interest to the public, and we need to treat each other with a degree of respect and dignity.
Let us come back to the Prime Minister. He broke his own laws in office and he broke international law, but the thing that ultimately brought him down was the fact that he could never, ever be trusted with the truth. That is the record, and that is now the Prime Minister’s legacy. He should not be allowed any room to rewrite that record and that legacy—even for seven weeks. It has not escaped anyone’s notice that this Prime Minister has lived his life thinking that the world owes him a living. He has not had the grace to stay today to hear the opening speeches in this debate. That tells us everything that we need to know.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The right hon. Member is making an excellent speech. The Prime Minister today spoke for 30 minutes, and not once in what could be his last speech did he make reference to the real fact that because of the political decisions that he has made, children are living in poverty, working families are using food banks and our communities have been devastated. Does the right hon. Member agree that, in his last speech, the Prime Minister should at least have had the dignity to apologise to the children in our country?
Ian Blackford
I agree with the hon. Member, and I commend him for the passion that he brings to this topic. The fact that so many people in this country are struggling, and that so many people will be struggling over the cost of living crisis, should concern us all.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Will the right hon. Member give way on that point?
Jamie Stone
I do thank the right hon. Member for giving way. We talk about food banks and we talk about poverty, but it is a fact that many households—the Prime Minister referred to them as some of the poorest in the land—including those in my constituency, have no alternative but to use fuel oil, because they are off grid. When I asked the Minister of State for Energy in March whether a cap could be placed on the price, he said no, because there had been some survey in 2011. Today is a very hot day, but winter is coming and it will be cold. May I suggest to the right hon. Member that it is the mark of a civilised and caring Government that these people are helped and that a price cap is put on the cost of fuel oil—domestic heating oil?
Ian Blackford
I agree with the hon. Member. We both represent highland constituencies. They are beautiful constituencies, but they are constituencies where the rain falls on a regular basis and the wind howls through the windows and the walls of the houses. Indeed there should be equity and fairness for everyone, regardless of where they live. We talk about the heatwave that people are suffering from today in many parts of the United Kingdom, but when I looked at the weather in my own constituency in the Isle of Skye this morning, the temperature was 14°C. People in parts of Scotland will still have their heating on. The fact is that people are being penalised and not being looked after as they should be, for the very simple reason that they have to rely on off-grid heating oil.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Ian Blackford
I will give way one last time, and then I must make progress.
Sir Robert Goodwill
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that the Chancellor provided assistance on electricity bills and not gas bills because people may use fuel oil or other types of fuel, but almost everyone in the country is on the electricity grid.
Ian Blackford
My goodness! The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have respect for him, but there for all to see is the lack of compassion, decency, humanity or recognition that people in highland constituencies are not getting the benefits that other people are getting. That is what happens with this Conservative Government.
Let us come back to the Prime Minister and his sense of entitlement—that he deserved to be Prime Minister, that he deserved to be above the rules and that he deserves the dignity of staying in office over the summer. But this place and the public owe him nothing. Only this weekend, he again showed why he is unfit for office by skipping Cobra meetings to do his favourite thing: attend yet another party. Another party! That is one thing that we might have thought he would learn. After being caught breaking his own laws and being fined by the Metropolitan police—the only Prime Minister in history to be fined in office—he turns his back on his obligations at a time of emergency over the effect of global warming, and he attends parties. That tells us everything that we need to know about the priorities of this Prime Minister. People have suffered enough under this most careless, casual and reckless inhabitant ever to have been entrusted with the office of Prime Minister. He does not deserve another day, never mind another seven weeks.
As well as casting verdict on the Prime Minister, today is also the chance to hold to account those who propped up his Government for so long. With every new candidate and every new campaign video for the Tory leadership, we are bombarded with talk of fresh starts and of hitting the reset button. I hate to break it to those candidates, but it is not lost on any of us that most of that talk is coming from the same people who backed this Prime Minister from day one and sat around his Cabinet table until the very end. Try as they might, they cannot hide the uncomfortable truth that they want us all to magically forget—that their party has been in power for 12 deeply damaging years. Fresh starts, new starts or clean starts simply do not exist after 12 years of the chaos that now defines their time in charge, and definitely not when they have already failed to get rid of the Prime Minister they put in power.
The herd might have moved last week, but it has very quickly fallen back in line and reverted to Tory type, as we have seen this afternoon. The Tories have stayed with this Prime Minister until the bitterest of ends, and today proves that they are staying with him still. Their failure to get rid of him means that we now finally need get rid of the lot of them, because today proves another thing: the only fresh start that will work is a general election—an election that will offer the Scottish people the chance and the choice of an independent future. On these Benches, we relish that campaign and the choice that is coming.
The need to put an end to this Tory Government is underlined by the terrifying spectacle of the leadership race under way throughout this building. No sooner had the race begun than it became clear that it was not just a race to get into Downing Street; it was a race to the toxic right. The policy proposals so far have amounted to tax cuts for the rich at the same time as millions of families are struggling to put food on the table, to watering down our climate targets when we can literally feel temperatures soaring, particularly in this place, and to doubling down on the hostile environment when the Rwanda policy has already gone beyond the point of morality.
The new Tory vision of these candidates is every bit as disturbing as the old one. While they are tearing lumps out of each other in this contest, they are ignoring the very thing that they are all responsible for: the Tory cost of living crisis ripping through every household on these islands. The contest has also exposed that they are completely out of credibility. Never again can those on the Conservative Benches claim economic literacy. During this leadership campaign, the Tory candidates have not just discovered a magic money tree; they have apparently found a magic money forest. The billions in tax breaks for the rich that they are bidding over always come at a price for the poor.
One of the most telling insights of the contest came from the current Chancellor, whose policy is to cut 20% from all public spending. That means 20% cuts to the NHS, to welfare and to our Scottish Parliament. The Tories imposed one decade of devastating austerity, and now it seems the new Tory vision is gearing up to inflict another. If ever there was a reason to vote no confidence today, surely that is it.
Of course, we on the SNP Benches are now well used to our country’s constitutional future being discussed and dictated by Tory politicians and Governments, who Scotland has not voted for or had any confidence in since 1955. The last number of weeks have been no different. It turns out that democracy denial was not just an attitude of the Prime Minister; it is now official Tory policy. The idea of a voluntary union of nations was clearly dead and buried long ago according to the Tory party, because every single candidate for the Tory leadership has fallen over themselves to tell us just how they are going to deny Scottish democracy—and we know why. They have long since run out of ideas and run of road in defending the Union, so now they are running scared of democracy.
I am genuinely sorry to say that the Labour party has now joined in that too. In the space of the last week, the leader of Labour party told us he was ruling out two things. The first was an independence referendum that—let us not forget—the Scottish people have voted for. The second was a return to the European single market and freedom of movement. He did not rule that out for now; he ruled it out forever. So not only will this place and these parties try to deny our right to a democratic vote on our future, but they will forever deny our return to the European Union.
If ever there were two motivating arguments to secure our independence, surely there they are. If that is really the Better Together strategy, it is in worse trouble than I even thought. The crucial point that those reunited Better Together parties need to understand fully is this: not only does Scotland have no confidence in this Tory Government, we have no confidence in Westminster control over our country. The parties here might not like it, they might try to deny it, but that is democracy—and them’s the breaks.
We want a different future—a future where we get Governments we vote for, where our democratically elected Parliament cannot be overridden and undermined, and where we have a secure foundation on which to build the economic and social future that we want. We want a new Scotland at the heart of the European Union. That is the future we can have confidence in. We have lost control in this place; we have lost confidence in Westminster.
Mr Speaker
Lots of Members want to speak in this debate. To try to accommodate them, can we start off by aiming for four minutes per speech?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The motion before us on the Order Paper is about confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. Since we face this cost of living crisis, war in Europe and all the other challenges, I was rather hoping when I arrived here that we might have a serious debate about how to deal with those issues. Instead, I heard a speech from the Leader of the Opposition that, in terms of vituperation, insult and sheer nastiness, was like nothing I have ever heard before, certainly about a Prime Minister who will be leaving office in a very few weeks.
Where is any sense of kindness or magnanimity? Why do we need to throw these insults around and claim—
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Edward Leigh
I am going to proceed, if I may. Why do we need to claim that this is the worst sort of mass murderer and criminal in political history? It is complete rubbish. The fact is that when this Prime Minister took power, Parliament’s reputation was in tatters.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Edward Leigh
No.
Virtually everybody in this Chamber had voted to have a referendum, yet many Members were doing their level best to frustrate it. Had we not had this Prime Minister, and had we not delivered Brexit, I believe we would have had a meltdown in political trust. He got Brexit done, though I agree that personally I would have liked to have done a lot more with it, and we will do, given time. That is the first issue, and that is why the Prime Minister was given a majority of 80.
The second issue is the pandemic. We have had all these insults against a Prime Minister who was working on our behalf and nearly died in office. It is a disgraceful attack. He was working flat out to save lives. Our record on the pandemic is frankly second to none. Again and again the Opposition tried to force us into more and more severe lockdowns, but this Prime Minister, with his vaccine roll-out, got us out of that mess, and thousands of people are now alive because of him.
Speaking for myself, I wholly regret the departure of this Prime Minister and I remain completely loyal to him to the very end, as I remained loyal to Mrs Thatcher. I think we will ask ourselves, “What have we done? What have we done to a man who gave us this 80-seat majority?”
The third point is that, but for this Prime Minister—the first western leader to arm Ukraine—Kyiv would now be in the hands of the Russians. We led Europe and the world in saving that country. That is the record of this Prime Minister, and I am proud as a Back Bencher to have given him all the loyalty I possibly could, as I will give loyalty to the next leader.
Of course there are challenges. Anybody would think that we lived in a vacuum—that despite the fact that we had the pandemic and the fact that we have a war in Europe, somehow the Government are to blame for all our ills. That is complete rubbish. When the next leader of the Conservative party—the next Prime Minister—comes into office, within weeks the Labour party will be calling for another general election, as we have already heard from the Leader of the Opposition. They will say, “This new Prime Minister is unelected, or elected by a fairly small number of people.” They never said that about the previous Prime Minister, because he was elected by the people with an 80-seat majority.
The problems are not going to go away .We all know that if the Labour party had been in power, the outcomes of the pandemic may not have been a great deal different. We do not know what will happen with Ukraine or with the economy, but the Conservative party, as the Prime Minister explained, is turbocharged because we believe in the power of the free economy, in freedom and in low taxation, although of course we cannot deliver that now. I say to my friends who are competing for the leadership: be responsible. I know it is popular to call for tax cuts now, but we have record levels of borrowing, and we do not solve the problem by borrowing more and more. It is said that we can put the covid expense in a particular box and forget about it for 50 years, and it does not matter, but we all know in our private life that we cannot say to NatWest, “I’ve got this debt on my car—I want to put it in a different box and I won’t have to pay for 50 years.” Debt is debt.
The Conservative party’s reputation is built on economic competence. We have to be careful with the economy. I personally was very unhappy about the rise in national insurance contributions. I am not in favour of tax rises. I believe that the reputation of a Conservative Government depends on low tax. We want to cut tax, but I say to the leadership contenders that we must be responsible.
In conclusion—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I am only trying to give a speech loyal to my party, which is surely no bad thing, and to the present leader of my party.
Sir Edward Leigh
No, I had better stop now, because they have had enough of me. Ultimately, the secret weapon of the Tory party is loyalty.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is right that these confidence motions can descend into pointless political attacks, but the reality is that this Government and this Prime Minister, and what they have done, make us oppose today’s motion, which is fundamental for anybody who wants to uphold democracy, defend integrity and restore trust.
It is not just about partygate, dreadful though that was, nor the failed attempt to defend the indefensible behaviour of Owen Paterson, nor the abhorrent culture of tolerating bullying and sexual harassment from political allies; these contribute to a loss of confidence, but they do not stand alone. There is also the endless list of incompetence and waste—taxpayers’ money being tossed around like confetti, with £16 billion fraudulently squandered on covid business support. There are the shameful failures in ambulance waiting times, 6 million citizens waiting for hospital treatment, people unable to travel because of the crippling delays at the Passport Office, and a stream of rail strikes and chaos at the airports.
All that is unforgivable, but it is the creeping culture of corruption and the determination to close down those whose job it is to keep a check on Executive power that makes this Government unfit for office. There is a growing body of evidence of corruption: dodgy Russian money funding MPs and the Tory party; an explosion in illicit finance, with Londongrad now the international capital for dirty money; peerages for pals like Cruddas and Lebedev; jobs for mates, from those like James Wharton to people from the Prime Minister’s City Hall days; and contracts for cronies, with only £0.2 billion of the £17.3 billion in contracts for PPE subject to open competition. This is not the Prime Minister’s money and not the Conservatives’ money. It is our money—taxpayers’ money, earned through hard work—and we expect it to be honestly and efficiently spent.
This Government have no moral compass. Look at their reaction when criticised by institutions that provide a check on their power. When the courts found that the Government had illegally prorogued Parliament, the Government looked to limit judicial review. When international laws prove inconvenient, they break or ignore them. Parliament’s role in holding Government to account has been eroded, with Ministers refusing to appear at Select Committees, the Prime Minister interfering in parliamentary elections, and legislation being rushed through with scant scrutiny. The independence of the civil service has been undermined, with permanent secretaries sacked for speaking truth to power and Ministers appointing their cronies as non-executive directors. Those in the press who dare to criticise the Government get sidelined. The Government tried to keep sections of the press out of No. 10 briefings. Their answer to criticism from Channel 4 is to privatise it, while the BBC’s reward for unbiased public service broadcasting is the licence fee slashed. A free press, a strong Parliament, an independent judiciary and an impartial civil service are essential to a healthy democracy. This Government have undermined these institutions, and it is shameful. This debate is essential to call a halt to the dangerous Trumpian assault on everything we value in our British democracy.
This should not be about Conservatives against Labour. Every MP needs to ask themselves, “Can I have confidence in a Government who mislead with impunity, abuse office to reward friends with jobs and lucrative contracts, put self-interest above the national interest, allow their party to accept cash for access, influence and honours, and whose members indulge in egregious lobbying or sex, bullying and sleaze scandals?” Can any hon. or right hon. Member in good conscience walk through the Lobby and declare their confidence after the litany of bad behaviours that have marked this Government’s time in office? The answer must be no.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I think I can be very confident in predicting that we shall never again hear a Prime Minister describe their phenomenal electoral victory as putting a blue ferret up the trouser leg of the Opposition.
Since this Government entered office in 2019 on the back of the Prime Minister’s historic election victory, the world has been turned on its head. Let us not lose sight of what has been thrown at the Government since March 2020. We have lived through a once-in-a-century pandemic, the first major war in Europe for a generation, and worldwide economic turbulence. Yet at every turn, this Government and the Prime Minister have put their back to the wheel and gone to work for the British public. Of course, by their own admission, mistakes have been made. At every opportunity, the Prime Minister has shown contrition and a desire to get on with a Conservative agenda. However, the mud-slinging and the relentless nature of politics and the media eventually take their toll on even the steeliest character.
The Labour party and some in the media are glad to see the Prime Minister go, as we are losing a political communicator and leader of historic proportions. At the 1997 general election, I stood for Burnley. While I believe I did as good a job as possible in restricting the Labour candidate to a majority of a mere 17,062, I never thought that Burnley would be a Conservative seat. Nevertheless, 22 years later and thanks to this Prime Minister’s leadership, I am proud to see that Burnley has its first Conservative Member of Parliament since 1910—and a very good one at that. The British public put their overwhelming faith in our Prime Minister and his Government to get Brexit done. Finally, we have escaped the grasp of the European Union’s clutches and we have our freedom. Because this Government made the right calls at the right time during the pandemic, we are learning to live with covid. Over 39 million people have received a booster jab across the UK. We had the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe and were the first to unlock and begin our recovery.
On a smaller, no less important scale, some years ago I brought forward a private Member’s Bill to allow motorcycles to use bus lanes. The evidence showed that when motorcyclists were in bus lanes, pedestrians were considerably more careful, and as a result people were no longer hurt or seriously injured. During his tenure as Mayor of London, my right hon. Friend heeded my call and he made it happen, and as a result in London motorcyclists are allowed in bus lanes.
Karl Turner
We know that when he was Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister managed to slip his security detail; we do not know why and there were no officials there. Does the hon. Gentleman have any concerns about what meetings the Prime Minister may have had as Prime Minister without officials or security detail?
Sir Bill Wiggin
I genuinely have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about, probably not for the first time, so I am not going to speculate. I am sure he would agree that motorcycling remains one of the best ways to travel around the capital.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not agree that like most of us here, the Government are not perfect? None of us is, and certainly not me. This motion appears to be a genuine attempt to change that approach. While it is not my form, I remind hon. and right hon. Members that kindness and respect in this place is the responsibility of every individual Member. This debate must have that underlying principle at its very core.
Sir Bill Wiggin
I agree that none of us is perfect—if we were, this would be a very dangerous game to be in, because there would be very quickly someone pointing out that we are not. It is helpful for our constituents to understand that it is absolutely right for the Opposition to be able to call a confidence vote in the Government at any time. If they made a mistake last week and therefore we are having it today, like all of us they are fallible too, and we should be very clear that that right is being defended. The hon. Gentleman is right to insist that kindness and respect are fundamental for this job—after all, it is hard enough anyway.
Another aspect of this Government and its leader that cannot be overshadowed is the reach and the likeability. My right hon. Friend remains one of the rare politicians who is on first-name terms with the public; this reflects a rapport with the public that is frankly astonishing, given the extent of smears from all corners of society. Many will never get their head around the fact that the Prime Minister remains immensely popular across the country. He loves his children, he is caring and he is loyal. My in-laws would agree, because he was their MP in Henley. Despite all the horrible things said about him, he is never rude back. Many people would not have been able to handle the vitriol he has experienced over the past few years, but that is a testament to his character. It is a great shame he is going, when he has done so much for the free people of Ukraine. I hope we will all try to live up to that example of protecting freedom, which is so crucial, and that is why I am proud to have supported him. He is right to leave with his head held high.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Like so many of the British people, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have absolutely no confidence in this whole Conservative Government. This Government have plunged our great country into three serious crises: the cost of living crisis, the healthcare crisis and a political crisis. Before the Prime Minister was forced to resign, there was absolutely no plan to tackle any of these crises, and now the candidates to succeed the Prime Minister are proving comprehensively that they have no idea of the scale of these crises, let alone how to tackle them.
I mention the scale of these crises because it is shockingly evident that the Conservative party is totally out of touch with the financial and healthcare catastrophes facing millions of British families and pensioners later this year. Let us start with the cost of living. Already families and pensioners are struggling to pay their soaring energy, petrol and food bills, and inflation is accelerating away. Energy bills alone were up £700 in April, with an even bigger rise coming in October. So many of our constituents are already asking how they are supposed to pay next month’s bills, and their fear about winter’s heating bills is understandably growing every day. Millions of people are facing a financial catastrophe over the next few months, yet the Conservative party seems blissfully ignorant.
In the so-called debates between the leadership candidates, there is this massive elephant in the room, the energy bill catastrophe, yet they have no serious answer to that. The Liberal Democrats have showed what could be done. For months, we have been calling for an emergency cut in VAT, which would save families £600 a year. Instead, this Government have chosen to raise taxes, to raise national insurance, to freeze income tax thresholds and to hit hard-working families, making the crisis worse, not better.
Then there is the healthcare crisis. Health crises used to occur for a few weeks every winter, but not with this Conservative Government. This Prime Minister has brought healthcare crises for winter, autumn, summer and spring. Just look at the stats: a record 6.5 million people on hospital waiting lists, cancer treatment targets missed by miles, and record long delays in ambulance response times. This Government have ignored the ambulance crisis, hoping it goes away: they have failed to employ the GPs, the NHS dentists and the care staff that the British people need and deserve. Now, leadership candidates argue about how much to slash the NHS budget, which brings me to the political crisis.
It would be easy to blame all the political crisis on the Prime Minister, and he must certainly take a large part of blame—he has debased the high office of the British Prime Minister and he has shattered the public’s trust in our politics—but he did not act alone. For three years, Conservative Members have backed him to the hilt. When he was at the Dispatch Box telling us that there were no parties at No. 10, or claiming that crime had gone down when it had gone up, they were all there behind him, nodding along with every word of it. Conservative MPs defended the indefensible and excused the inexcusable. It is not just the Prime Minister we have no confidence in; it is all of them.
The people of Chesham and Amersham showed that they have no confidence in the Government when they elected my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) last year. The people of North Shropshire showed that they have no confidence in this Government in December, when they voted for another of my hon. Friends, the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). The people of Devon showed they have no confidence in these Conservatives just last month, when they so wisely elected my hon. Friend the new Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord).
We think it is time we gave everyone across the country the chance to have their say and to end this shameful, shambolic Conservative Government through a general election. When Conservative Members decide how to vote today, I urge them to ask themselves these questions. Do they really have confidence in a Government who have raised taxes by more than £1,000 per family in the middle of a cost of living crisis? Do they really have confidence in a Prime Minister who was fined by the police for breaking his own law, who forgot about serious allegations against his Deputy Chief Whip, and who is now under investigation for contempt by a Committee of this House? Do they really have confidence in a Government who are running our NHS into the ground and taking local communities for granted? I believe that the British people have lost confidence in all of them, and if the Conservatives have any decency left, they will back this motion tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Mr Speaker indicated that there would be an informal limit of four minutes, and that clearly is not quite working. I am not speaking with reference to the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), because as leader of his party he is allowed a certain leeway. We now have to have a formal limit of four minutes. I call Mike Wood.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Yes, this House can have confidence in Her Majesty’s Government, because faced with unprecedented challenges over the past three years, it has got far more of the important decisions right than wrong. Have there been mistakes? Of course. I am not aware of any Government, of any nation, even in the most benign times, who could claim to have made none. Of course, these have not been benign times. On the big questions facing the Government, our country is in a better position, with the Prime Minister having been in charge for the past three years, than it would have been in if the Leader of the Opposition had had his way.
On the decision to respect the referendum result, the Prime Minister broke the deadlock over Brexit that threatened to leave the country paralysed with indecision. There are still important issues to resolve, but it is clear that any of the five Conservative candidates to replace him will continue that work, and will secure Brexit, not reverse it. We know what the Leader of the Opposition wanted to do if he became Brexit Secretary in 2019: hold another referendum to overturn the first one. We know what he promised Labour party members in order to become its leader: free movement across the EU. However, he is now telling voters that he would not take us back into the EU internal market. People are bound to ask: who is he telling the truth to? This Government and this Prime Minister called it right.
Going into the global pandemic, the Government recognised that normal procurement and distribution systems would not get personal protective equipment to the people who needed it most urgently. The Leader of Opposition attacked the Prime Minister for putting in place too many checks, being too slow, and not awarding contracts quickly enough. Later, that criticism was reversed; suddenly there were insufficient checks and bureaucracy. Again, the Government called it right and struck the correct balance. They put in place the biggest job and business protection schemes in British peacetime history to make sure that our economy could build back once the need for lockdowns had passed: 9 million workers’ wages were paid; nearly 3 million self-employed workers were helped; and businesses right across our economy were supported. If the Leader of the Opposition had had his way, and the plans of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) had been put in place, bankrupting the nation, we simply would not have been able to borrow the money for that emergency help.
Back when a covid vaccine looked a distant prospect, the Prime Minister and the Government backed a range of potential vaccines, as well as Kate Bingham’s superb taskforce, which the Opposition decried as waste and cronyism. The Opposition were wrong; the Prime Minister was right; and Britain got more vaccines more quickly than any other European country.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mike Wood
I really do not have time.
It was the Prime Minister’s personal intervention—he sent back early drafts of the roll-out strategy—that brought together the NHS, the armed forces and the private sector to get vaccines out quicker than other large countries did.
We can be proud that when Russian troops invaded one of our European partners, our Prime Minister did so much to lead international support for Ukraine. It is simply not credible to imagine that Britain would have stood as firmly against Russian aggression if it had been led by a man whose response to an assassination attempt on the streets of Salisbury was to demand that evidence be sent to Moscow.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Was it the right response to that poisoning to fix a meeting with a former intelligence agent of the KGB—a meeting without officials, minutes, or any report to this House of what the hell happened?
Mike Wood
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what the right response was: it was to co-ordinate the biggest diplomatic response since the end of the cold war. The Prime Minister, then Foreign Secretary, got more diplomatic responses than have been seen in decades. The Prime Minister has many achievements of which he should be proud. His successor will have a strong foundation to build on, thanks to the decisions that he has taken over the past three years.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
We do not currently have a functioning Government; it imploded two weeks ago, when there were over 50 ministerial resignations in 36 hours. The decision of those Ministers to render their Government incapable of governing forced the Prime Minister to concede that the end was nigh, but he did not resign. Shamefully, he was allowed to make over 60 new ministerial appointments to a caretaker Government. Many of those appointees will be Ministers for only three months, in this drift through a national crisis.
The Prime Minister has been told that he must be gone by 5 September. That is 50 days from now—50 days in which the Government will be led by a disgraced Prime Minister, and in which Parliament will be in recess. It is not in the interests of our country or our democracy to allow this discredited Prime Minister to squat in Downing Street one day longer. He is a security risk, having admitted to attending KGB agent Alexander Lebedev’s Italian villa alone, en route home from a NATO summit. He is trying to install more of his cronies in strategic jobs before he goes. He is ending his tenure in Downing Street much as it began—by going AWOL from emergency Cobra meetings; he prefers to party at Chequers instead. Also, there are rumours that he is planning a bumper resignation honours list of 40 Tory peers. Such powers of patronage should not be available to a man driven from office in disgrace by Members on his own side of the House.
If the motion is not carried, it will bring about a general election. It is voters, not Tory Members, who should be given the chance to pass a verdict on this catastrophic Government and their failures of probity and competence. Of course, the Tories do not want to face the voters yet. They are hoping that they can ditch their third leader in a row and crown a new Prime Minister without bothering to ask the country. They prefer to have the next Prime Minister chosen by their tiny and completely unrepresentative party membership—the very same people who chose the disgraced incumbent barely three years ago.
The Tories hope that they can evade any blame for giving a man they knew to be wholly unfit for his great office the keys to No. 10, but they cannot. Tory MPs are as culpable as the Prime Minister for the chaos and catastrophe that he has caused. They gambled with our democracy, and with respect for the law, truth and morality in public life. They lost, and now the voters must judge them. If we are to believe the dangerous pitches of the wannabe Prime Ministers still in the leadership race, the minuscule Tory membership appears to be obsessed with fantasy promises of billions of pounds of unfunded tax cuts, and haunted by the fear of so-called wokeness.
It is crystal clear that the Tories are not addressing any of the real problems and challenges facing this country after 12 years of Tory misrule. They have not addressed the cost of living crisis facing millions of our fellow citizens. They have said nothing about soaring levels of child poverty as they vie with each other for who can concoct the biggest fantasy tax cut. They have left the country weaker and more ill prepared for the future. Their neglect has caused chaos in the NHS, the Passport Office and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, at the border, and in our schools and courts.
As the leadership race lumbers on and more of the 2019 manifesto is ditched, the Tories are shredding our constitution, their manifesto and their mandate for government—and now they will not even debate in public. That is why we urgently need a general election. In evidence last week, John Major said of the Cabinet:
“They were silent when they should have spoken out and then spoke out only when their silence became self-damaging.”
The only democratic way to respond to what has happened is to have a general election now.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I certainly, most emphatically, have confidence in this Government, and no confidence whatever in Her Majesty’s official Opposition, the Liberal Democrat party, the Scottish National party, or any other Rag, Tag and Bobtail. First, I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, who has led on all the historic matters that he has carried through so successfully since becoming Prime Minister a mere three years ago: Brexit, standing up for Ukraine, and covid.
The general election was based on a manifesto that gave us a great democratic majority, and the Labour party a well deserved drubbing. On the handling of covid, from which the Prime Minister nearly died—[Interruption.] Don’t you dare speak like that. With courage and resilience, he battled through. AstraZeneca and the expertise of our great scientists led the way, with the support of our Government under this Prime Minister.
Then there is Ukraine—Putin’s brutal and unprovoked aggression, and the murder and killing of innocent citizens, not to mention even Russian soldiers sent to fight on false pretences—on which the Prime Minister of this country has led the world.
Then there is Brexit, on which the Prime Minister led a democratic victory in 2019, endorsing the vote of the British people in 2016 and freeing us from the subjugation of the European Union, other than with the unfinished business of Northern Ireland. That is now being addressed in the Committee stage of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which had a majority of 74 on Second Reading.
Brexit itself, with the freedoms generated by leaving the laws of the European Union and the means to unleash the potential of the British people and their businesses, innovation and worldwide commercial ambitions, will create new horizons in our economic history.
All this is based on stable economic foundations. The fact is that, if we look at the unemployment rate in the other member states we see that, while our unemployment—now we are out—is 3.8%, in Germany it is 5.3%, in Italy 8% and in Spain 13%. The eurozone is imploding and on life support. All these problems of the cost of living were induced by the uncontrollable global and external forces causing inflation throughout the western world.
Under all the strident rantings of Labour Members, this Government have succeeded where, on every count, they would have completely failed miserably. The essential foundations of sovereignty and democracy have now been re-embedded in our national DNA. This success cannot be taken away from the Prime Minister, and it never will be when the history books are written.
Job vacancies are now at a mere 1.3 million in this country, which is far better than in the other member states. The G7 and similar countries are affected in a similar way. Thanks to this Prime Minister, this Government and this party, we have made a success of one of the greatest revolutions in British constitutional history, certainly since we entered in 1973 and stretching back over 400 years.
I have confidence in this Government because they have achieved. Opposition Members have failed every single time they have ever been given an opportunity to do so, and they will do so again.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Well, what a man to follow! [Interruption.] I am not sure that Fran and Anna here quite agree with me on that.
Let me say that we are here debating a confidence motion in the Government, but as has been said by other speakers before me, we do not have a Government. They are a Government in name only. It is essentially now a form of organised Tory hooliganism that squats in these offices of state, squats in these Departments and squats most of all in Downing Street.
One of the canards that is often advanced—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) wants to get to his feet and intervene, he is more than welcome. I am happy to have the extra 60 seconds from him. The canard often advanced by Government Members—people would not know it, but we are only having this debate because they wielded the knife on their leader just a couple of weeks ago—is that the Prime Minister “gets the big calls right”. Let us examine that proposition.
As a few Conservative Members have been asked, did he really get a big call right when, post-Salisbury and straight after a NATO summit, he went to the palazzo in Italy of a former KGB agent? Was that him getting a big call right, and he did not even have the decency to do it properly with security and logging it with his Department. That was when he was Foreign Secretary, and before he even got to Downing Street.
Did he get all the big calls right when he was partying all over the place and our constituents had to adhere to the rules as strictly as they did? Indeed, it resulted in him being the only Prime Minister—the only Prime Minister—to have received a fixed penalty notice while in office.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I have witnessed the Scottish Conservative party at close quarters over the years, as you have, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I always thought, going back to the days of the hon. Gentleman’s old pal the late Sir Teddy Taylor—that tenement Tory of my constituency—that he believed in law and order, but he sits there decrying anyone who draws attention to the fact that we have a criminal in Downing Street who has the keys for another five weeks in office.
Sir William Cash
Is the hon. Member aware that the Lord Chief Justice himself said, in a case on fixed penalty notices when the payment was made within 28 days, that it was not a crime, that the individual could not be prosecuted and that he had left the court without a stain on his character?
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The hon. Gentleman has educated me, because I did not know that, but it does not change the facts. Facts are chiels that winna ding, and those are indeed the facts.
The Prime Minister has presided over a shambles. Two weeks ago, in this very building and not so far from here, we witnessed a Government in meltdown, and yet we are asked to believe that somehow all the MPs, Ministers, Parliamentary Private Secretaries and trade envoys who resigned got it wrong, and this Prime Minister is still fit for office.
Nothing says that quite like the acres of empty green Benches on the Government side of the House tonight, so while they—[Interruption.] Well, it is a Government motion. It is a Government motion brought forward by the Prime Minister himself, and is it not telling that none of the leadership candidates have turned up to defend him here tonight? One could only imagine that several of those who have come here—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) wishes to get to his feet, I am happy to be educated once again.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The hon. Member is making a fantastically farcical speech, but I am enjoying it immensely. It is a little bit rich, when there is an election open now, to have a go at candidates for not being here at this moment. This is a fair place and he knows the process; he has been here longer than I have. This is a six-hour debate, and I think it is fair to give some courtesies in this House.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Not all interventions are best made on your feet, as the hon. Gentleman has showed with great grace.
As far as this is viewed in Scotland, for all that we have heard not just from the leadership candidates, but from the Prime Minister himself—indeed, he was at great pains to name the various red wall constituencies that his big blue Tory ferret paraded through—it is worth noting that in Scotland, his party continues to go backwards any time the electorate face a ballot paper in their constituencies. The Tories have not won an election in Scotland since the 1950s, and the idea that we are frightened of any of these contenders now is for the birds. They will lose more elections in Scotland.
The chaos actually started with David Cameron; it is not all the fault of the current incumbent of No. 10, let us be honest. I can see that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) at least agrees with me on that. All the chaos that has flowed from the 2016 referendum has only made the case for a strengthening—a strengthening—of Scottish democracy, which I know the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) takes seriously. There will be a referendum on Scottish independence.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The right hon. Member can shake his head as much as he likes. The reason why there will be one is that, like many Government Members, the public are free to change their minds. They are free to give a Government in Edinburgh a mandate, as they did in 2011, to ask that question on Scottish independence again. We rejected this rancid, squalid Brexit, which he sits there smiling about, and that is how we will reverse it in Scotland. Labour has shown us that there is no route to do it via Westminster. The only way to do it is for Scots to take their future into their own hands and create such a path back into the European community, where we belong. We will do that with our independence referendum in 2023, and I look forward to the Scottish people voting for it with enthusiasm.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I rise to declare my confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. There are myriad substantial reasons for doing so, but I am going to focus on just three, because of the time allowed to me.
The first, of course, is the ending of the Brexit impasse, which the dead Parliament of 2017 to 2019 showed itself to be incapable of doing. Under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Conservative party won a landslide victory at the 2019 general election, when I had the privilege of being elected for the first time to represent my constituents in Orpington.
It is undeniable that a significant reason for the national result was the mandate to deliver on the largest democratic exercise in this country’s history—an exercise that had hitherto been thwarted by arrogant elites, some of whom I see sitting opposite me this evening. On 31 January 2020, Her Majesty’s Government delivered on the will of the people, and we left the European Union. The Labour party claimed that a Conservative Government would not achieve a Brexit trade deal, and yet Her Majesty’s Government announced on 24 December 2020 that Britain and the EU had agreed a post-Brexit trade deal, ending months of disagreement. A clear manifesto commitment that the previous dead Parliament had failed to deliver had been completed within a few weeks of the election. In the months that followed, the Government announced more than 70 trade agreements with countries all around the world.
That is achievement No. 1, and I will now move to achievement No. 2. Shortly after we left the European Union, the worst pandemic in a century hit the entire world. Her Majesty’s Government put their arms around the people, at great pace and under enormous pressure, and introduced a comprehensive package of support for individuals and businesses. Component parts of the support deal, such as the furlough scheme, saved millions of people from being made redundant when businesses could not trade because of the spread of the virus. Although our economy was on life support, it was kept alive thanks to the actions taken by the Government. As a direct result of decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, this country was among the first to begin to emerge from the pandemic.
Her Majesty’s Government made the right call when it came to the vaccine. Thanks to the Government’s quick action to secure the most promising vaccine doses in advance, more than 120 million doses were administered in the first year in the UK alone. It should be noted, however, that the leader of the Labour party wanted Britain to remain in the European Medicines Agency, which would have delayed the roll-out of the vaccine. Countries in the EMA were much slower with vaccine production and roll-out than the UK was. Had Labour remained in power, the vaccine success that we experienced in this country would not have occurred at anything like the speed it did, with potentially dire consequences.
Her Majesty’s Government made the right call when it came to reopening the economy last year—something that, of course, the Labour party disagreed with. Time after time, senior Labour figures called for the maintenance, and even an extension, of restrictions. The Leader of the Opposition even said that he would vote for a circuit-breaker lockdown over Christmas, and then days later pretended he had never backed a Christmas restriction. Had he been in power, it would have been less Captain Hindsight, and more Major Catastrophe.
Finally, this Government and this Prime Minister have led to the west rallying international support for Ukraine. Her Majesty’s Government have kept our country safe. They have led the world in response to the first ground war on the European continent since the second world war, and they have got Brexit done. It is therefore patently obvious that the House should have confidence in Her Majesty’s Government, and I will be supporting the motion.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
It is an unusual thing to be in the Chamber listening to all this praising of the Prime Minister from the people who have just got rid of him. I wonder whether they have buyers’ remorse. One reason why our Prime Minister was got rid of, with heartfelt letters from Conservative Members, has been completely forgotten about since the leadership hustings started—it is as if it did not happen. The reason I do not have any confidence in the Government, and the reason I do not have any confidence in the Conservative party, is because of the dreadful record they have overseen on sexual harassment and violence in their own ranks.
Since I was elected to this House, two Conservative Members have gone to prison for perpetrating sexual crimes. In one of those cases, I repeatedly begged various Conservative Members with power, including the Chief Whip, to intervene, to stop and not to give him the Whip back, telling them how serious were the accounts I had heard. Every single time, that was ignored—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would like to intervene on me, I would be more than happy to explain the very fine details.
A victim of child sexual abuse came forward to the Conservative party and said that they had been abused by the candidate in Wakefield, after which the Conservative party lost the complaint, or it went somewhere. That candidate was then elected, and he is now in prison for sexual crimes. This is deeply serious. The hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts)—I have informed all the people I will be mentioning that I will be mentioning them, Madam Deputy Speaker; I imagine there are some Members checking their inboxes right now—was cleared by the Conservative party’s processes. Then the Prime Minister was toppled because he promoted somebody who he knew had undertaken sexually harmful behaviours. While everybody here is now dancing on the head of a pin about how great the Prime Minister was, and how he got all “the big calls right”, they should remember the reason that every one of those Members wrote those letters. Where, from every single one of the candidates—[Interruption.] If the Justice Secretary would like to intervene, I am more than happy to take an intervention.
Jess Phillips
The Justice Secretary says it is total rubbish. Would he like to get to his feet and tell me what I have said that is total rubbish? No, he would not. Shall I tell him what’s total rubbish? The rape statistics that he has overseen as Justice Secretary. That is what is total rubbish, and it is not a surprise when his political party turns a blind eye.
Dominic Raab
Does the hon. Lady recognise the fact that in the last year, the volume of rape convictions has increased by two thirds? A simple yes or no.
Jess Phillips
That is the convictions, but how is the charging, Secretary of State? Again, I am happy to take an intervention. Has the charging gone up or down? Currently, 1.3% of rapes that are brought forward result in a charge. That does not surprise me, when the institution that is currently in government constantly turns a blind eye to sexual misdemeanours.
A lot of people have mentioned antisemitism in this debate, because they are all desperate to make it about something wrong with the Labour party. However, when the Labour party was holding a leadership election, every single candidate was asked, “What will you do to stamp out antisemitism?” and rightly so. It is vital that we were held to account. So what did any one of the candidates do when the Member for—I can’t remember where, but Pincher by name, pincher by—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have given the hon. Lady quite a lot of leeway. We are discussing matters that are or perhaps will be sub judice, and I think the hon. Lady knows that. Let us guide this in a different direction.
Jess Phillips
I would like to know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time did when the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) was given that position. I would like to know what the Foreign Secretary did. Did they all sit back? I wouldn’t have. I would never have sat back. I want to know what every one of the candidates who wants to be Prime Minister did when that happened. I want to know what the Conservative party is going to do about its institutional problem, when it cannot deal appropriately and independently with complaints about sexual harassment. I have absolutely no confidence.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Today’s motion is on whether we have confidence in the Government, and obviously I will be speaking in favour of that. I want to register my exasperation with the way that we arrived at having to table this motion, after the botched stunt by the Labour party last week. By attempting to table a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, Labour Members sought to do away with constitutional precedent and decades of convention. Whatever their personal animus towards the Prime Minister—I have listened to the speeches, and I can tell it runs very deep—the office is bigger than any one person, and the institutions around it, and our constitution, are bigger still. To seek to upend that in a fit of petty spite just shows how irresponsible and deeply unfit the Leader of the Opposition is to lead. He is a man who should know better, and a man who, as a lawyer, does know better, but he simply cannot do better.
This is the mother of Parliaments, not a sixth-form debating society. However, that is not what the debate is about. I appreciate this is a popular debate, so I want to touch briefly on why I will be supporting the Government tonight.
Government Members were elected on an ambitious manifesto, which was not just about Brexit, as some would like to claim. It was also about how we use that opportunity to change the way in which our country is working, because frankly, for a very long time in a great number of places, it simply has not been. Areas like mine were left in abeyance, written off, put in the “too hard” basket and subjected to their own passive form of managed decline, and that is not right. It cannot be the case that all the talent and ability is clustered in one part of the country—we know it is not—so why should all the opportunity be focused in a postage stamp-sized area of the country? Our manifesto promised to address that, and we have already made great strides.
That job has undoubtedly been complicated by the pandemic, which nobody’s manifesto contained. The pandemic has meant that it has been necessary to do extremely difficult things, but it was years of making tough choices since 2010—restoring our public finances—that enabled us to put our arms around the nation at the darkest of times. There will undoubtedly be those who want to talk down the pandemic response, but the simple fact is that this country went further and faster than most to protect, vaccinate and unlock. It was not all that long ago that Opposition Members were demanding that we emulate the EU, New Zealand and a host of other countries, only to then see them grappling with surging infections and repeated lockdown measures.
I have always believed that levelling up—or whatever we want to call it—is about different things in different areas. For me in Heywood and Middleton, it meant improving educational opportunities and transport links—seemingly simple things that will open doors that are currently just out of reach of so many. In my borough alone, about £130 million was injected into the local economy to protect lives and livelihoods at the height of the pandemic, and, after a genuine fight to stop the Labour Rochdale Borough Council siphoning most of that into its reserves, we got the money to the people who needed it. During my first 18 months as an MP, I closed more cases than my Labour predecessor did in her five years. That is the level of intensity that this Government have put into supporting the country, and the amount of disinterest shown by my predecessor and her party.
As we emerge from the pandemic, what next? Rochdale borough has bids in for £40 million of levelling-up funding. Greater Manchester has been allocated £98 million from the shared prosperity fund, in addition to over £1 billion earmarked to improve public transport, which is a game-changer. More than £1 million has been given to cultural recovery in the borough, and the Government have designated us as one of their priority education investment areas, with a share of more than £40 million. Despite everything that has happened in the past few years, we are getting on with the job.
I have been extremely proud to sit on these Benches for the past two and half years, and I genuinely believe that what we have done has been with the best intentions—to make this country a true partnership of people, all of them engaged in a common endeavour, and all of us equally able to achieve if we are willing to put the work in—and that is why I will be voting confidence in the Government tonight.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
No, I don’t have confidence in this Government, because they have manifestly failed to govern efficiently or effectively. They wasted billions on fraudulent covid loans, unusable PPE and a test and trace system that never, ever worked, and they have completely mismanaged the Passport Office, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the railways.
No, I don’t have confidence in this Government, because they lied about Brexit and they have not got Brexit done.
No, I don’t have confidence in this Government, because they have not got any of the big calls right. When we were warning—when I was warning—about Putin’s Russia, the Prime Minister said the days of tanks rolling across Europe were over, and he cut our Army by 10,000. When covid started, the Government failed to protect people in care homes, sending thousands unnecessarily to early graves. When everyone issued warnings about inflation, the Prime Minister said that it was nothing to get worried about.
No, I don’t have confidence in this Government, because a massive shortage of personnel and skills is holding Britain back. Asparagus and courgettes are ploughed back into the field, strawberries are left to rot and pig carcases are destroyed, all while British families rely on food banks and—worst and most shameful of all—NHS hospitals run food banks for their staff. Many schools have no applications at all for teaching posts, especially in key subjects such as science, maths and modern languages.
No, I don’t have confidence in this Government, because they refused to put Magnitsky sanctions in place for years; because they still have not tackled dodgy Russian money and London’s massive money laundering industry; because they failed to take Putin’s initial invasion of Ukraine seriously enough in 2014; and because their delight in Putin’s bling emboldened Putin.
No, I don’t have confidence in this Government, because they are obsessed with all the wrong things. They spend more time and energy protecting statues than protecting women from domestic abuse. They deliberately drive wedges between people over gender identity and trans rights, and ignore the fact that their own Equalities Minister resigned because he thought the Government were creating a hostile environment for LGBT people, which is why the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) should be ashamed to defend this Government.
No, I don’t have confidence in this Government, because they have no plan for the NHS or social care. England has a backlog of 6.6 million patients, and that excludes patients’ multiple treatments. And no, it is not all to do with covid; we had a 4.8 million backlog before the pandemic.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is quite bad to have points of order that disrupt debates. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) has had a chance to speak. I am not sure whether he tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but he may go ahead with his point of order.
Chris Clarkson
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) just pointed at me and said, “and that’s why he should be ashamed.” Is that in order, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Well, yes, if that is the opinion of the hon. Member for Rhondda. Did you try to intervene?
Madam Deputy Speaker
No, you did not. That would be the appropriate thing to do.
Shaun Bailey
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The occupants of the Chair have consistently talked about temperance of language. I do not think it fits within the ruling given from the Chair to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), as an LGBT man, should be ashamed to defend this Government. Could you just clarify to the House whether that is temperate language?
Madam Deputy Speaker
First of all, that is not a point of order. Secondly, Mr Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means and I have all said that we should try to conduct this debate in reasonable terms. I think we all need to calm down and discuss the important matters before the House. I call Chris Bryant.
Chris Bryant
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
No, I don’t have confidence in this Government, because they play fast and loose with numbers. They boast that they are recruiting 20,000 more police, but they cut police numbers by 20,000. They boast of a single tax cut now but forget that they have increased taxes 15 times in two and a half years, giving us the highest tax burden for 70 years. They boast of the covid vaccination as if they personally developed it in the Downing Street kitchen, but France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Singapore have higher vaccination rates than us, and Wales managed it faster than England.
No, I don’t have confidence in this Government, because not even Conservative MPs really have confidence in this Government. They know that this Government are a massive conceit, an organised hypocrisy, a house built on sand—and the fissures run deep. They are not even very good at being Conservatives these days, tearing up conventions and the constitution like student revolutionaries. Of course, that is not how Conservative MPs will vote today. Oh no—they would not dare risk a general election. But even as they troop through the Lobby to indicate that, yes, they do still have confidence in the Government, they will be privately plotting that Government’s demise. They will be making themselves look foolish today. I do not mind that, but they cannot take the British public for fools as well.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his dedication to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, his aspiration for all in this country, and his expectation that we can achieve great things as individuals and as a country. This Conservative Government, working as a team, have delivered hundreds of achievements over the past two and half years. They have delivered and continue to deliver on the people’s priorities: Brexit, for starters. In March 2020, the country faced an alarming health crisis—the covid pandemic—which the Opposition have conveniently forgotten about. The Government have taken decisive action to shield the public from the worst effects of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. It is very easy to criticise, but far more difficult to make tough and hard decisions.
We have delivered the biggest reforms to our railways in 25 years, with simpler, modern fares and reliable services. We have begun the accession process to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, giving UK businesses access to one of the world’s largest and most dynamic free trade areas. We hosted COP26 in Glasgow last year, helping to drive ambitious climate change action around the world, and we passed the world-leading Environment Act 2021, ensuring that the environment is at the heart of this Government’s agenda. We also passed the Agriculture Act 2020, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the Building Safety Act 2022, the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. We have seen the plan for jobs, upskilling and reskilling, and a focus on education, giving every pupil in England a funding boost so that all children have the same opportunities to succeed. We have invested in levelling up parts of the country that have been long overlooked and neglected, including through the levelling-up fund and the towns fund deals. Hastings received £24.3 million, leveraging another £85 million in private sector funding. I could go on.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentions the towns fund. Does she agree that it will transform and regenerate the towns and cities left behind by Labour in the past?
Sally-Ann Hart
I completely agree. That is why the previous Conservative Government had the northern powerhouse, to try to lift people left behind for generations by the Labour party.
It is a fundamental principle of our constitution that any Government must retain the confidence of the legislature. That is us. The Conservative party won an 80-seat majority. That majority may have been reduced slightly, but the Government operate effectively, as votes on legislation in the last couple of weeks alone prove—healthy majority votes in favour of the Government, backing the Government. The Prime Minister may have lost the personal confidence of some of his MPs, but he has not lost the legislature’s mandate.
I pity those on the Opposition Benches. They have resorted to the petty low of personality politics because they have nothing else. With this Prime Minister gone, what will they do? We can feel their panic seeping across the Floor of the House. Their hate-fuelled moralistic posturing has made them all vulnerable. The Government continue to function as a strong team, and I have full confidence in them to deliver the priorities of the people and businesses in my constituency, as well as in the country. On the Conservative Benches, we keep calm and we carry on in the British way.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The most disturbing aspect of this entire debate is that the Prime Minister is still in office. After all the lies, the rule-breaking and the defence of sexual predators, and after his own Cabinet turned on him, he is still in office. Clearly, this House has no confidence in the Prime Minister.
The reason I have no confidence in this Conservative party is that Conservative Members have enabled the delusion and they continue to enable it. In the Prime Minister’s mind, he thinks he has done no wrong. He probably even thinks that he is the victim.
Chris Clarkson
Does the hon. Gentleman know of any other party represented in this Chamber whose leader tried to protect a sexual predator and is still in post?
Tommy Sheppard
I am sorry, but I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said. My apologies. Will he repeat it?
Chris Clarkson
Does the hon. Gentleman know of any other party represented in this Chamber whose leader is still in post after protecting a sexual predator?
Tommy Sheppard
No, I do not, but if there were, it should certainly be investigated. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to say something, perhaps he should say it and not be quite so coy and insinuating.
What is even more concerning is the manner in which the Prime Minister’s successor is being selected. What started out as a sort of political beauty pageant has become a carnival of reactionary ideas, as the contestants vie with each other to see who can be the most right-wing. The reason is simple. They are not appealing to the Conservative parliamentary party, they are appealing to a narrow and narrow-minded section of the electorate quite unlike the people among whom they live: the Conservative party membership. How else can we explain that, as the country burns, not a single candidate has anything to say about the climate emergency? How else can we explain that they are talking about tax cuts on business profits, rather than action to help ordinary families with the cost of living crisis?
There will be Conservative Members who will hope that that is just an aberration, that those things will disappear once the contest is over and that some of this economic illiteracy, in particular the drivel about small states and tax cuts, will pass into history.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I would just like to point out, for the benefit of the House and the hon. Gentleman, that in fact earlier today every single one of the candidates spoke and was questioned at length by the Conservative Environment Network on precisely the issues he has just described.
Tommy Sheppard
My point is that when they set out their stall it was not on their agenda. This was not something they chose to put in their prospectus, because they know who they are appealing to. It is worrisome in the extreme that people who ought to know better are massaging prejudices among the Conservative party membership to gain political office.
Some will hope that this will disappear once the election is over and that much of the drivel about tax cuts and small states, and the economic illiteracy that comes with it, will pass away, but there is a worrying trend here. Some of those ideas may gain traction and may change public policy. I am concerned that the Conservative party is attempting to do that—change public policy in this country, without consulting the electorate. If it does that, that would be undemocratic and illegitimate.
When it comes to Scotland, I am also concerned. I do not expect any new Conservative leader or this Conservative Government to support a Scottish independence referendum, but I do expect—I do expect—a degree of civility and respect when it comes to appreciating Scottish public opinion. It is distressing that what we have seen from quite a number of the candidates, and what now seems to mark the character of the Government, is to ignore it and override it. Hence, we get statements about how the UK Government think that they need to save the Scottish people from the SNP-led Government in Edinburgh. What a monstrous contempt that is of the people who elected that Government just 14 months ago. Surely it is not too much to expect that there should be some dialogue, some respectful conversation? If there is not, that in itself will ensure the destruction of this Union.
This attitude is fuelling the campaign in Scotland for an alternative. We come here, mandated by the communities who sent us here, to say that people in Scotland want another choice on whether they should be an independent country. It is their right, their democratic right, to have that aspiration and to demand that it be listened to. We will not be going away. We will keep coming and we will keep demanding. The more this Government, in whom I have no confidence, refuse, the more the argument for the alternative, a new independent country, will gain ground. I say to the Conservative party and to the Conservative Government: Scotland clearly has no confidence in you. Everything you are doing makes Scotland believe there is a better alternative to come.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Just a few moments ago, one of colleagues of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) talked about Tory hooliganism. The definition of hooliganism is the SNP trying to smash up the United Kingdom—that is hooliganism.
The motion we are debating tonight asks whether
“this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
Absolutely yes, we have confidence in this Government. Why do I say that? This Government are delivering for British people, delivering for my constituents in Warrington South. We left the European Union. We invested and innovated in life sciences to deliver a vaccine rollout. We supported families and businesses with the furlough programme during the worst health crisis for 100 years. We lifted restrictions, allowing our economy to get back to business. We supported Ukraine in a way that most other European countries failed to do. We put billions of pounds of support into families as the long tail of covid affects the cost of living. This Government are absolutely backing the people of this country.
Our first duty as Members of Parliament is always to our constituents and the areas that we are honoured to represent in this place. What have the Government been doing for the past two and half years for Warrington? We have been levelling up transport, with Warrington benefiting from £42 million of Government investment. We are replacing our entire fleet of buses with 120 new zero-emission electric buses. We have been tackling environmental issues and ensuring that we have cleaner and better air quality. We have been improving services for local people and reducing the cost.
What are we doing on schools? Last week, I had a message from the principal of Penketh High School, John Carlin, who said how thrilled he was to receive £6 million from the Government to rebuild his school. He has been trying to achieve that for the past 10 years. The £6 million rebuilding programme will finally mean that students in Penketh get the facilities that they deserve.
In March this year, I was delighted to welcome the Prime Minister to Warrington to open a brand-new scan centre at Warrington Hospital, funded with £5 million from the Government. It is a fantastic addition, delivering new MRI and CT scanners, and the imaging suites and facilities have been reconfigured. That means that the backlogs that we faced as a result of covid have been almost entirely removed.
While the Government put in place policies and funding to help constituents in Warrington South, we are beset by Labour-run Warrington Borough Council, whose priorities appear to be building huge logistics centres on the green belt and introducing terrible low-traffic neighbourhoods that simply increase the congestion in our town.
For all the Opposition parties’ talk of a general election, let us remind ourselves that we have a parliamentary system, not a presidential one. We were elected on a manifesto to level up the areas of the country that for too long have felt unnoticed and have been left behind. I am incredibly proud to represent my home area in this place, and I am proud to work with this Conservative Government, who have done so much to benefit constituencies such as Warrington South. Tonight, I will vote to support the Government on this motion.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I decided to have a quick look at this Tory Government’s record in order to prepare for this debate. I found that child poverty has gone up by 300,000 since 2010. According to the Government’s records, 860,000 children do not know where their next meal is coming from. That is all before we factor in the cruel cut to universal credit or this year’s inflation rate—so no, I have no confidence in this Government.
Crime is up by 18% and prosecutions are down 18%, and that is just in the past three years. Less than 6% of offences lead to a charge, and that is a record low—so no, I have no confidence in this Government.
The Prime Minister promised 40 new hospitals. Where are they? Ambulance waits are going through the roof. Every single ambulance service has declared a critical incident. People having a heart attack or a stroke are waiting on average 50 minutes for an ambulance, and for many the wait is far longer. One patient waited 24 hours in an ambulance before a space in the hospital was found. These waits are deadly—so no, I have no confidence in this Government.
Let us get to the man in Downing Street. He spent the past years as he spent his whole life, corrupting and destroying confidence in everything he touches. This is not just about the parties, the law-breaking, or whether he misled the House; it is his casual approach to our democracy and our society. He has spent the past six months pretending that everything is going great and we know it ain’t. Inflation is skyrocketing and the economy is on the verge of recession.
What is the plan to deal with the root causes of that? We have workforce shortages blighting our NHS, all our public services and much of the private sector. We have massive trade problems linked to the mismanagement of the Tory Brexit, but all the Tory party leadership knows how to do is pretend that immigration is somehow the problem and that bashing the EU is some kind of solution. Well, it ain’t.
The Tory party has finally done the right thing, but frankly it is too late, and it is superficial. There is not going to be real change. The Tory record of destruction, division and chaos continues. The country is boiling but the leadership candidates will not credibly address climate change. They have said little to nothing about it—I think they must live on a different planet. All they can manage is to argue against the tax hikes that they voted for just weeks ago. When they are not doing that, they are trying to divide our communities based on frivolous nonsense. We would be better off if they talked about stopping climate heating or how to stop the NHS falling apart, but that does not seem to match the priorities of Tory donors.
So do I have confidence in this Government? Hell no. The truth is that our country will be able to recover only once the lot of them are out of office. For that we need a general election. Let’s get on with it.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The manifesto on which the Government were elected was entitled, “Get Brexit Done, Unleash Britain’s Potential”, and the first part of that has been achieved. It has been difficult and protracted but we got there, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on achieving perhaps the most significant single piece of constitutional change in the post-war era. When one sees, for example, unrest in places such as Catalonia, I think we sometimes do not give ourselves enough credit for this country’s ability to effect change peacefully, smoothly and, considering the far-reaching implications of Brexit, at some pace. The Prime Minister achieved that and although his premiership is ending sooner than many would have liked—sooner than I would have liked—his place in history is undoubtedly assured, and he has begun to unleash Britain’s potential.
I welcome the creation of an east midlands freeport that will create up to 60,000 jobs in the region—made possible by Brexit. I welcome the Government’s ambitious vaccination policy—made possible by Brexit. I further welcome the more than two dozen police officers on the streets of Gedling, the plans to overhaul the Queen’s Medical Centre and City hospitals in Nottingham, and the increased school funding in Gedling—made possible thanks to the sound finances that only a decade of Conservative Government can provide. That is the Prime Minister’s legacy, which will be taken forward in the remainder of this Parliament.
The Leader of the Opposition instigated today’s confidence motion. If it fails, there will be a clamour for a general election. So what is his European policy? For starters, he is the man who said no—the man who was happy to tell the people of Gedling, “You may have voted to leave the European Union, but I’m going to ask you to do it again.” To him, the good folk of Gedling put their X in the wrong place on the ballot paper. They were to be admonished and told to correct their mistake.
The Leader of the Opposition is seeking to look like a Prime Minister in waiting. To establish his European credentials, he went to the continent this week, turning up in Berlin where the Bundestag is in recess. He committed what many considered to be a serious faux pas by recording a party political video at a holocaust memorial. In that video, he declared that he wants the Labour party to follow in the footsteps of the German Social Democratic party. Given that the SPD’s position in the opinion polls has fallen by a fifth in the past three months, I wish him well in those endeavours.
As I speak, there are five contenders for the Conservative party leadership—almost as many as for the Labour party leadership—and one of the things that they have in common is that none of them served, or would serve, in a shadow Cabinet led by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is hostile to NATO, called for collaboration with Russia after a chemical attack, and is a proponent of a reckless economic agenda. The prospect of a Labour Government led by the right hon. Member scared people in Gedling at the last election. Notwithstanding the many achievements of this Government, of which there are many, it is surely inconceivable that anyone would have preferred, or placed greater confidence in, the alternative Government who might have been elected in 2019 to take us through the pandemic, Brexit and the war in Ukraine.
I will support tonight’s motion because I have confidence in the programme of this Government, I have confidence in the Cabinet, I have confidence in the manifesto, and I have confidence that the Labour party remains unfit to govern.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Well, I certainly do not have confidence in this cobbled-together, bottom-of-the-barrel Government. If we are supposed to be voting tonight on whether or not we have confidence in them, people out there will surely be asking if that is some sort of rhetorical question. When we add all the Opposition MPs, all the Ministers who resigned and all the Tory MPs who voted against the Prime Minister in their vote of confidence, I think we know where Parliament sits on this Prime Minister. It is not a positive report card in any way, shape or form.
Scotland never took this Prime Minister seriously for a minute. I am a testament to that: when it went to the country in 2019, Angus said, “No, we’re not going to have a Tory MP. We’re going to have an SNP MP in Westminster, speaking up for the values of fairness and opportunity and underscoring our mandate for an independence referendum”—and it will happen, I can assure you of that.
I will not miss this Prime Minister talking up the UK economy and gaslighting the people of these islands about it. He makes it sound like a land of milk and honey, but there is £2.2 trillion of sovereign debt in the UK’s name. Let us be really clear: when this Government came to power, there was £0.8 trillion of sovereign debt. We are getting on for three times that figure, which took nearly 100 years to build up; this Government have nearly tripled it in 12 years. The Government have lost complete control of the economy. The term “working poor”, let us not forget, should be a contradiction in terms, but it is not—not in the UK, where two people in one house can go out to work for 40 hours a week and still not have enough money to put food on the table.
The Prime Minister cloaks himself in the NHS in the most shameless, unedifying way possible—it is absolutely abhorrent. Then there are these phantom numbers about building new hospitals, and all the while people cannot get access to an ambulance or make their way up a waiting list for an operation.
The Prime Minister shamelessly exploits the UK armed forces, who should be above politics but have been dragged mercilessly into it by this Prime Minister and his cronies in the Cabinet. Thousands have been cut from the Army on his watch. Nuclear weapons and their delivery systems are getting on for consuming a sixth of the armed forces budget. The Government have cut the E-7 Wedgetail programme to three. The Ajax £5.5 billion debacle has been rumbling on for the entire duration of this Government’s term. Yet they are supposed to be the Government who stand up for the defence of these islands. It is a disgrace.
Worst of all, how dare they deny democracy in Scotland? The people of these islands in Scotland are not confused. They do not vote SNP out of some sort of habit or tradition; they vote SNP because they recognise our values in their values, and they do not recognise the values of the Conservative party, one iota.
Conservative Members are smirking and laughing, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, laugh up your sleeve, I’ll tell you that, because the people of Scotland are watching you. They are watching the disdain that you have for the decisions—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Too many times now, you have used the word “you”. It is one thing to use it in a general sense, but you are implying things about me when you use it with the word “disdain”.
Dave Doogan
I would not dream of doing so, Madam Deputy Speaker.
They are laughing up their sleeve. The people of Scotland are recognising that, and they do not like it one iota. We will have our say, and we will divest from this broken United Kingdom once and for all.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
You have asked for a more moderate, positive tone, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will endeavour to achieve that.
I have full confidence in this Government, for three reasons. First, no captain is more important than their team, and on the Government side of the House we have a very strong team. Secondly, the Government have delivered for the country as a whole; a lot of my colleagues have rehearsed the arguments about Brexit, covid, Ukraine and, indeed, net zero. Thirdly, this Government have delivered for my constituency of South Cambridgeshire. I was elected to represent the interests of my constituents, and the Government have had a real impact on their lives.
The Government have delivered for healthcare in South Cambridgeshire. We have the new Royal Papworth Hospital—a gleaming, state-of-the-art hospital, the most important heart and lung hospital in the UK. Just a couple of weeks ago, we opened the Heart and Lung Research Institute in South Cambridgeshire, with the biggest concentration of heart and lung researchers in the whole of Europe. More is coming: the Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital will be opened in 2025, and the Cambridge Children’s Hospital—the first such facility in the east of England—will be opened shortly afterwards. It will be the first hospital of its type to combine the mental and physical wellbeing of children.
The Government have delivered for transport in South Cambridgeshire. Cambridge South station will be opening in 2025; it is going through the processes now. The A428 has started dualling, we have finished dualling the A14, and the Government have started looking at the Girton interchange.
The Government have delivered for the environment in South Cambridgeshire. One of the big issues for us is protecting the chalk streams. The Government have set up a chalk stream taskforce and passed new legislation on sewage discharge, which all the Lib Dem MPs voted against. Shame on them—they voted to dump sewage into chalk streams. We have brought in new laws on hare coursing, which is a really big issue in South Cambridgeshire. I had meetings with the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about it, and we finally brought in laws to stop that terrible crime.
Education spending is a really important issue in South Cambridgeshire. Historically, we had one of the lowest levels in the country, but we have had a 21.3% increase in real-terms education funding in Cambridgeshire since 2014. Just in the past two years, there has been a £453 per-pupil increase in education spending, and schools are starting to feel the difference. We need more, but it has already made a difference.
When we had the covid pandemic, the Government delivered support for businesses and individuals. Some 17,000 people were on furlough, with their jobs saved by the Government. There was more than £50 million in funding for businesses. A lot of my small businesses, especially in hospitality—pubs in particular—were saved by the intervention of this Government and the support they gave.
Research is a very big thing in South Cambridgeshire, where we have literally hundreds of research institutes and companies. The Government have increased funding for research and development to £22 billion a year by 2025, which is making a real difference for South Cambridgeshire.
Finally, we now have record numbers of police officers in Cambridgeshire: 1,671 as of March. We have never had more than we have at the moment.
For all these reasons, the Government are delivering for South Cambridgeshire. I have full confidence in this Government.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
When I was door-knocking in Newcastle yesterday, a young mum of two told me that she had never found it so hard to manage. The cost of living crisis meant that she could barely afford to get her kids to school. The Government were doing nothing to help, and she and her friends had joked that they would have to start selling their kidneys. That is the gallows humour of a country in crisis; it does not belong in one of the richest nations on earth. I have no confidence in a Government who do not support working families in Newcastle.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I would just like to add that the same issue can be found across the country, in every part of it including the south of England. She is making an excellent point, and I hope that the Government listen to her.
Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend for underlining that point—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. A lot of Members have put in to speak, and it is important that we get to them. If colleagues wish to take interventions, that is absolutely no problem, but I strongly encourage them to stay within four minutes.
Chi Onwurah
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have no confidence in a Government who do not support working families in Newcastle. When people have no confidence in the Government, it drains their confidence in politics and democracy generally. After all that has tested our country—the financial crisis, austerity, Brexit, covid, inflation—it is more important than ever that we have confidence in our leadership. But I have no confidence in this Government, because the Prime Minister repeatedly told Parliament that there had been no parties, and he was then fined for partying.
I have no confidence in this Government, because as our Queen contemplated the loss of her life partner of 73 years, alone, Downing Street partied. I have no confidence in this Government because each and every Minister, whether they resigned or not, is tainted by the support that they gave to the disgraced but still presiding Prime Minister. I have no confidence in this Government, because the Prime Minister does not find formal sexual misconduct complaints against a serving Government Minister to be memorable.
I have no confidence in this Government, because when the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency was asked to justify slashing 91,000 civil servants, he said that technology would enable them to do more with less. The right hon. Member for the middle ages agreed only reluctantly to a digital Parliament and is happy to give the impression that the printing press is a recent and debatable innovation. I have no confidence in the Government, because when giving a valedictory assessment of his meteoric rise and fall, the expensively Eton and Oxford-educated Prime Minister said “them’s the breaks”.
I have no confidence in this Government because they have decided to do without a science Minister, even as they say that science is essential to our economic recovery. I have no confidence in this Government because, as our nation faces a lethal heatwave—one so severe that the rail links between Westminster and my constituency have been severed, and the NHS is braced for a wave of heatstroke victims—the Prime Minister prefers to play “Top Gun” rather than turning up for Cobra meetings. I have no confidence in this Government because the candidates to replace the disgraced Prime Minister are so mired in mud-slinging that they barely mention health, education, jobs or the environment, and have now cancelled further debates because they are so embarrassing. I have no confidence in this Government because they appear to be in an arms race to slash taxes, cut the state, and “postpone”, or abandon, our commitment to net zero carbon emissions.
As we swelter in this country, we should remember that the whole of Europe is less than two thirds the size of the Sahara desert. If we do not meet the climate challenge, the Sahara is coming for us. If the Government think that net zero commitments are “expensive”, they should try costing the retrofitting of air conditioning in every home and school and every other building in the country. That will be but a small part of what it will cost us.
I have no confidence in this Government because they have no ideas and no convictions. They are a zombie Government; worse, they are a vampire Government, effectively dead but still continuing to suck the lifeblood from my constituents. Only a Labour Government can provide the fresh start that we deserve.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
May I begin by saying that my colleagues on the Government Benches look very much alive to me?
Looking back over the last two and a half years, I think we can say with confidence that the Government have done a lot of things well. We left the EU when so many said that that was not possible. Our covid response has been one of the best in the world. The furlough scheme, delivered at extraordinary speed, prevented the horror of mass unemployment. Early decisions taken on vaccine procurement saved countless lives, and enabled the UK to leave lockdown sooner than almost any comparable nation. On Ukraine, this Government and our Prime Minister have led from the front, not only in terms of sanctions but in providing military and moral support.
In my constituency, the Government are delivering on our manifesto promises to level up. The towns fund will see £24 million invested in Stocksbridge and Deepcar. Government grants have rescued cultural assets such as the Paramount cinema. A new “fibre in the water” project in Penistone offers the possibility of rolling out high-speed broadband to rural homes. The Prime Minister’s personal intervention on behalf of the steel industry, in particular to keep the steel safeguards, has been a boost for local industry and an important demonstration of this Government’s commitment to areas that were once the powerhouse of this country, and can be again.
No Administration is perfect, and ours has made its fair share of mistakes, but this Government have done many things, nationally and locally, to inspire confidence. Of course, I speak in the context of huge uncertainty at the heart of Government. The Prime Minister has resigned—I have lost track of who has not resigned—and we are in the middle of the process of choosing a new leader. The events of the last six months will be chewed over relentlessly in the coming years, but let us not forget that, despite the Prime Minister’s mistakes and misjudgments, 14 million people voted for our party under his leadership, securing the biggest Conservative majority for three decades. Unlike so many other politicians, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) has the ability to inspire, to uplift, and to connect with those who feel that the British establishment does not represent them, their communities or their values.
After 2016, the reputation of Parliament suffered, as ordinary people looked on while “the establishment”—as they saw it—sought to overturn the biggest popular mandate of all time. My concern is that when a coalition of the media, the Opposition and, sadly, some within our party work relentlessly—and, now, ultimately successfully—to destabilise a Prime Minister with such an extraordinary democratic mandate, we may once more be accused of trying to thwart the democratic will of the people.
As we on these Benches are engaged in the process of choosing our next leader, let us consider this. No one is without fault. No one is without a past. No one who has the skills, experience and charisma to lead our great nation will never make a mistake. No one has never lied. We have been told that the Prime Minister had to go because of his lack of integrity and a tendency to change his mind. The previous Prime Minister had to go because she had too much integrity and refused to change her mind. Perhaps, like Goldilocks, we will now find our “just right”. But our party is a broad church, and we have a broad range of candidates vying to lead it. Whoever wins, we must unite behind his or her leadership, and stand firm against attempts to throw us off course. Perhaps the question is not “Who is ready to lead?”, but “Are we ready to be led?”
So yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do have confidence in this Government. I have confidence in the British people who put this Government in place, and I wish the new Prime Minister—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Lady’s time is up. I call Hannah Bardell.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
“O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!”
The words of the great Scots poet Rabbie Burns are as resonant now as they were when he wrote them, because if we cannot, as politicians, see ourselves as others see us, we have little hope of governing responsibly or with credibility. I suspect that if the Prime Minister and some others on the Conservative Benches, with their delusions of grandeur, could see themselves as people in my constituency—and in all our constituencies—see them, and could see the damage that their Government have done to those people, they would be, and should be, horrified.
That is the problem with this Government and this Prime Minister. Some have become so used to the privileges, the entitlement and the trappings of government that they have become utterly insulated from reality. Our citizens have the right not to have confidence in this Government, this political system and these political institutions at Westminster, because—as this Government and this Prime Minister have shown—they are utterly broken.
We should not be surprised that we have ended up with a Prime Minister who has gone from one elitist institution to another, from Eton to Oxbridge to the House of Commons. In fact, 50% of Conservatives were privately educated. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) wants to intervene, he is welcome to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Okay, but remember what I said earlier about Members who were trying to catch my eye and chose to intervene—down the list.
Jonathan Gullis
The hon. Lady is casting aspersions against people who attended private school. I find it quite disrespectful that my mother and father, who chose to send me to that school and to use their hard-earned money to give me the best start in life—which they unfortunately did not receive themselves—should be insulted in this way.
Hannah Bardell
I think that there is a basic reality here. In a tweet, the academic Taj Ali pointed out that
“Just 7% of Brits are privately educated…43% of the…most influential news editors, 44% of newspaper columnists…are privately educated. A two-tier education system creates a two-tier society.”
That is the point I am making. We have a Prime Minister who is completely divorced from reality. The current leadership race and its navel-gazing narcissism have given us a window into that elitism and privilege. Among the contenders is one of the richest men in the UK, who by his own admission knows literally no one who is working class. Those people left the Government only when they realised that their own reputations would be tainted. Whether it is the Windrush scandal or the Post Office Horizon crisis, there is a litany of chaos behind this Government.
I have no confidence in this Government because they have failed to build proper social housing, failed to fund a health service that was already on its knees before the pandemic, and failed to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Instead, they have cut the financial lifelines of the poorest and most vulnerable, and have sought to balance the books on their backs while vilifying them.
The SNP Government in Scotland are sick to the back teeth of cleaning up the mess of this Conservative Government, and using our precious resources, with one financial hand tied behind our back, to clean up that mess. Mitigating the bedroom tax and lifting the poorest and most marginalised out of poverty without the full basket of financial powers is hugely challenging, but we do it because we understand what it means to govern in everyone’s interest.
This Tory Government have failed because they have failed to quell the river of dirty Russian money flowing through their financial system. I was on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and I saw this Government turn their back on the opportunity to stem the corruption and flow of dirty money. While we are grateful for what they have done in Ukraine, it is an absolute disgrace that this Prime Minister, this Government and previous Prime Ministers did so little.
I have no faith in this Government because they have presided over a right-wing Brexit that has torn our social and economic fabric apart. We understand the notion of credibility. The sooner Scotland can get independence, the sooner Scotland can flourish and the rest of the UK can, I hope, have its own democratic enlightenment and be free from the chaos and corruption that this Westminster system of Government holds.
I have no confidence in this Government because I am sick and tired of hearing Conservative Members talking on television about how, because they had personal experience of those who lost loved ones during the pandemic, we somehow do not have the right to challenge the fact that their Prime Minister partied his way through it. The reality is—[Interruption.] Hon. Members might shake their heads, but I had to stand at the deathbed of one of my team, a dear friend, through a window in her hospice because I was not allowed to cuddle her, while their Prime Minister partied his way through it. And there he is, still sitting in power—
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
There have been some serious contributions today, and one of them has been quite enlightening. I have often wondered what people see in the Scottish National party Government—a Government that have trashed the economy, trashed the education system, trashed the health system—
James Daly
They have bankrupted it, and they have one of the worst drug problems in the west. They are the absolute definition of incompetence—[Interruption.] Absolutely not! No more nonsense about the rubbish we have just heard. This is a motion of confidence, and to hear from a party with a record of utter, dismal failure that they intend to criticise this Government is truly laughable.
Can I turn to Greater Manchester—[Interruption.]
James Daly
Let us turn to the record. We have covered the SNP’s record, so let us see the record of the Labour party in Greater Manchester that my constituents are faced with. With that great political titan, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, what have we had? We have the Greater Manchester police, for which he is the police and crime commissioner, in special measures. We have had the iOPS computer system, which has cost about £800 million—completely wasted. We have mental health services, all under the control of Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester, in special measures. What a complete and utter disaster. The cherry on the cake was when he attempted to impose upon people in greater Manchester the world’s biggest green air charging zone. Andy Burnham’s big idea was to charge my constituents anywhere between £10 and £60 for having the temerity to go to work. That is what they are faced with.
The great record of the Labour-controlled council in Bury comes down to this. I can only go through the litany of failure. In the Bury Times today, we see that children’s mental health services in Bury are on their knees because of our Labour-controlled council. The headline in the paper says that it will take 10 years for Labour-controlled Bury Council to get children’s services back to even a “good” rating. This is under a Labour council. The record of the Opposition parties on how they have interacted with our constituents as governing bodies throughout this country is absolutely abysmal.
I wish the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) was still here, because she missed something out when we were talking about rape and serious sexual offending, which has an incredibly serious record. What she never touches on is the abysmal record of the Leader of the Opposition as Director of Public Prosecutions. That is something Labour Members quite rightly never talk about—[Interruption.] Absolutely, and they throw allegations out regarding this Government’s record.
So, what do we have? My Government have spent £10 million on building a new science, technology, engineering and maths high-skill centre in Bury. They have saved Gigg Lane and given my constituents back their 130-year-old football club. They have invested £80 million in transport infrastructure and provided £20 million for a levelling up bid for Bury town centre. Mysteriously, the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) is not here. I know he would want to—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Has the hon. Gentleman notified the hon. Member for Bury South that he is going to mention him?
James Daly
I will withdraw that, Madam Deputy Speaker. All I will say is that within the Metropolitan Borough of Bury we have another levelling-up fund bid in for the people of Radcliffe, a new school coming for the people of Radcliffe and the SEND school providing support services for some of the most vulnerable people in my communities. This is a Government to be proud of and a record to be proud of.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd.
The Prime Minister’s bluster and banter and his stock-in-trade mockery ended today, and they were little more than a pointy finger rhetorical raspberry, not just to us but to everyone who ever made the mistake of holding him to his word and believing what he told them. He is a law-breaking Prime Minister who cannot be permitted to remain in office, even as a caretaker. His dishonesty and abuse of power have together only served to erode trust in politics and our institutions. The House will not be surprised to hear that my party does not have confidence in this Prime Minister or his Government.
To come back to the question of eroding trust, this is why I introduced a private Member’s Bill that will make it an offence for politicians knowingly to lie. They will be given every opportunity to correct the record, but they will be held to account in law so that they use words—our stock in trade—genuinely and honestly to the best of their ability. I have also written to the Conservative leadership candidates inviting them to support the Bill, because they have made truth and honesty core tenets of their campaigns as they attempt to separate themselves from the outgoing Prime Minister, whom they all of course supported. The Bill seeks to ensure that those who deliberately lie are held to account, but also to send a signal that lying and dishonesty in a modern democracy are a blight that must be eradicated.
My party’s lack of confidence goes beyond this Government, besmirched as they are by Westminster scandal. It is driven by the wider deep-rooted problems of the Union. We distrust the Union and lack confidence in the Union. The UK is foundering in deep stagnation from years of Tory austerity and a hard Tory Brexit that is hobbling our economy. It is no wonder that Poland is set to become richer than Britain in 12 years’ time on current growth rates. It will not be ordinary working families who feel the benefit of the tiny growth that is predicted. The TUC estimates that the UK will see the worst wage squeeze of all the G7 economies, with real average wages falling by £1,750 between 2022 and 2023.
In Wales, we seek the macroeconomic tools but continue to be denied the bare necessities to fix Westminster’s chronic tolerance of geographical inequalities. When we look at the place of Wales within the UK, we can see that things are very bad. Since 1998, relative productivity in Wales has hovered between 80% and 85% of the UK level. Once London’s disproportionate weight is accounted for, the figure is still only 90%. Wales has been given the tools to juggle poverty, not to condemn poverty to history. How can we have confidence in a Government and system that perpetuate such gross inequalities? The current UK Government talk of levelling up, but instead of presenting a comprehensive plan for redistributing wealth, they have forced councils to fight over dwindling pots of money.
Today, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that this Government’s levelling up agenda does not work for Wales. It says that their ideological insistence on excluding the Welsh Government from decision making has led to worse outcomes for Wales. Despite this, the Conservative leader in Wales recently called for no further powers to be devolved and said that consequential funding for HS2 should—wait for it—be controlled by the UK rather than the Welsh Government. This is a staggering insult to our democracy. In conclusion, we have no confidence in the current Government and we have no confidence in any Westminster Government.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
It will not surprise hon. Members that I have confidence in this Government.
I will talk first about some of the policies this Government have pursued. It would be very easy for me to talk about Brexit and how this Government managed to pass it through the dreadful impasse and political paralysis of the last Parliament. Opposition Members did everything they could to block Brexit, but this Government got it done.
It would be quite easy for me to talk about the great effort that led to jabs going into people’s arms and our country opening up, releasing our freedoms once again. I could talk about the millions of people supported through the furlough scheme. It would be easy for me to pour scorn on the political pygmies on social media who say that, somehow, Britain’s place in the world is diminished as a result of Brexit. We need only look at the streets of Kyiv to see that is just not the case.
But what this Government should be congratulated for is providing hope to the 14 million people who voted for the Conservatives, many for the first time, and to the many people who did not vote for us. Many of them were voting for the hope that this Government would break with an agenda that had been pursued for decades, probably starting with the Blair Government. It is a big-city, London agenda that is not for places like Peterborough: a Britain attached to the EU, dependent on mass migration and cheap labour, in which we were happy to write off millions of young people without a job because we could easily import labour from elsewhere. It is very much a liberal agenda that was happy to pour scorn on and laugh at traditional values, national identity, strong communities and strong families.
We again saw scorn being poured on these people during the jubilee. The agenda is one of big business and big cities, but little people and little places like Peterborough were left behind with low-paid jobs, suppressed wages, a sky-high welfare bill, regional inequalities, the negative effects of mass migration—as well as the positives—and high rates of family breakdown and alcohol and drug abuse.
To many people, including many Opposition Members, these people do not matter. They are denounced as bigots, gammons, Karens and many other vulgar terms when they voice their objection to this agenda. That is what this Government are trying to address in creating a high-wage, high-skill economy, and in levelling up and valuing places like Peterborough.
In Peterborough we have built a new university, with students starting in September. We have £23 million for towns fund regeneration and investment. We have new police officers, more money for theatres and more money for our schools. I implore Members on both sides of the House to understand that, when they take their nose away from SW1 and away from their Twitter feed, they will find that real people still support the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] Okay, I will read out a quote. I do not have time to go through all of them:
“The current government have best dealt with the pandemic, given circumstances, and also delivered Brexit. It is the only government that can deliver today, tomorrow and future!”
These are the ordinary people of Peterborough. [Interruption.] Members should take their nose away from their Twitter account and realise that the Prime Minister is still very popular. He is a greater man than many of his critics, and it is a sad day to see him go. I still have confidence in this Government.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
This place is always interesting, but it has been particularly interesting to listen to all the Conservative Members standing up, time and again, to suggest they will support this motion. They do not even need to listen to us; they need only tune in to the next leadership debate to hear their own candidates talk about the litany of abysmal failures overseen by this Government over the past 12 years. We will not let the Conservative leadership candidates wipe the slate clean after 12 years of Conservative rule. They walked through the Lobby to vote for 15 tax rises, against hungry children getting free school meals and against the windfall tax on the multibillion-pound profits of oil companies, before they adopted Labour’s policy and tried to give it a new name.
There is loads I could mention. People forget that all the leadership candidates supported the Prime Minister through partygate, the Owen Paterson crisis and the dodgy covid contracts—the list is longer than my arm. The failures of this Conservative Government led to record NHS waiting lists and record delays in A&E, delays at the Passport Office, delays in our courts, delays in prosecuting rapists and murderers, delays in issuing driving licences and delays at our airports. There is record neglect in the cities of the north of England such as Bradford, where we have had years of austerity, years of underfunding and years of false promises, including on Northern Powerhouse Rail, none of which have come to fruition.
This Government have completely wrecked this country’s industries—that is their record. We have a skills crisis in this country. There is a crisis with our criminal barristers that is leading to further delays in our courts, a crisis in our care sector, a crisis with HGV drivers, a crisis with train drivers, a crisis with airport workers, a crisis with school teachers and a crisis looming in the civil service. Do Conservative Members really want to stand by this record?
I do not know where to begin on the record of successive Conservative Governments on engagement with Muslim communities. When I saw the front page of the Daily Mail last night and heard about the so-called “dodgy judgment” of the Minister for Trade Policy, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), in meeting a “controversial” Muslim group, I did not expect the meeting to be with a mainstream Muslim organisation that Members on both sides of the House meet on a regular basis.
The Muslim Council of Britain is a mainstream Muslim organisation backed by mainstream British Muslim mosques, organisations and institutions. Yesterday, No. 10’s long-held secret boycott of a mainstream Muslim group was finally admitted on the front page of a tabloid newspaper. This Government’s record is that the Prime Minister’s comments led to a 375% increase in attacks on Muslim women. Previous Conservative Governments refused to form a working definition of Islamophobia, and then they refused to adopt the definition used by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims. They then promised to make a definition of their own, before appointing and then unappointing their own adviser. Almost a decade later, hate crime against Muslims is rising, and what do we have from this Government? Absolutely nothing but a mainstream Muslim organisation boycotted by No. 10.
I am sorry to tell this Conservative Government that the days are gone when they could prop up Muslim organisations with one or two members, funded and supported for the purposes of the Government’s policy agenda. Those days are over. Mainstream British Muslims sit in Parliament and represent our nations in sport. We are the doctors and nurses in our hospitals, and we are the teachers who teach our children and future leaders. We are equally British and must equally be heard. The record of this Government is nothing to be celebrated, and those who vote for this confidence motion are equally responsible because they are endorsing the Government’s actions.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
One might think that Her Majesty’s Opposition had better things to do than waste valuable parliamentary time, and one might have thought they would respect parliamentary conventions in the preparation of a motion of confidence, but they failed in doing that, too. No matter, as this Government have again shown them how it is done, hence this debate. Here we are, playing these silly games while we have a war on our hands and several issues to deal with at home and overseas. [Interruption.] We are having this debate because of parliamentary convention, and this is the way to do it.
Much has been said about leadership in recent days, weeks and months, but no leadership has been found emanating from the Opposition, just the usual stone throwing from a party that is so out of touch with the people of this country that it felt its motion—the one that needed to be corrected—was the best way to spend valuable time.
Let us talk about leadership. This Government responded to covid by leading the western hemisphere’s response. Brexit, which Opposition Members all voted against, allowed us to fund and procure a vaccine, and to get it into people’s arms faster than pretty much anywhere else on the planet, saving lives quicker than anywhere else on the planet. What did Labour do? It opposed procurement and then criticised every move, with Captain Hindsight at the helm.
Marco Longhi
Well, this is great leadership—just listen to this. To be fair, Labour did take a stance on one thing. Labour would have had us in lockdown throughout the whole of Christmas and beyond, destroying more jobs, destroying more businesses and harming lives. That is out there for everybody to see; everybody knows.
The Ukraine—
Marco Longhi
Ukraine. I stand corrected. Absolutely. On Ukraine, this Prime Minister and our country are the ones revered most by the Ukrainian politicians and people, and hated most by Putin. That does not happen by chance; it requires leadership. So what have Labour Members to say about defence? They say, “Defund it.” That is what they have always wanted. [Interruption.] They have always wanted to defund it. If the Leader of the Opposition had been successful in electing the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), we all know that we would now be without a nuclear arsenal.
Those are the two huge issues confronted head-on by this Government, in addition to delivering the programme set out in the 2019 manifesto—one that is bringing real change in my constituency. So let us have this vote tonight and let us send a message out to the nation about what the Labour party is all about. I will not say “what the Labour party stands for”, because I do not think anybody really knows.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The leadership of this self-obsessed and profoundly damaging Prime Minister is finally coming to its end, but this charade went on for far too long. He should have gone over his mishandling over the pandemic. He should have gone over the lobbying scandal that he created. And he should have gone because he partied when people died and then, as we put it in this place, “misled” this House. Now he is going, but only because he has been forced out by his Ministers, because they have finally concluded that he will cost them more votes than he wins. So they do not deserve any credit. They knew who he was when they voted for him, they propped him up through every scandal and, together, they have stripped away our rights and made the people of this country poorer.
While the news focuses on the Tory party implosion, supermarkets are adding security tags to cheese, butter and baby formula; we have the highest inflation for 40 years; electricity is fast becoming a luxury good; and millions are no longer paid enough to put food on the table. This hunger, poverty and inequality is all a political choice, and without action people will die. People, particularly disabled people, have already died because of this Government and 12 years of brutal cuts. We need a Government who will tackle the cost of living crisis, but instead we have one who are barely functioning, while the squatter in No. 10 is throwing parties in Chequers.
If anyone had any hope that the next Tory leader would prioritise the cost of living crisis, the contest so far has completely dispelled that. Instead of setting out the bold measures they would take to help working-class people, the candidates to become Prime Minister are obsessed with attacking trans people and cutting corporation tax. So no, I do not have confidence in this Government to tackle the worst drop in living standards since 1956. I do not have confidence in this Government to prevent millions from being forced to choose between heating and eating this winter. And I do not have confidence in this Government, full stop. So on behalf of my constituents who lost loved ones to the pandemic due to this Government’s actions, on behalf of the families I meet who are left with no choice but to turn to food banks, and on behalf of every person in this country who deserves better than a low-pay, no-safety-net safety created by 12 years of Conservative rule, I will be voting no confidence in this Government.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I am proud to stand up on behalf of the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke and express confidence in this Conservative Government. Why is that? It is not just because the 73% who voted to leave the European Union finally had their wishes commanded, despite the Brexit-blockers on the Opposition Benches continually trying to find every way to dodge delivering the mandate those people gave. It is not just because of the fantastic furlough scheme, which meant that people kept their jobs during the biggest global pandemic in 100 years. And it is not just because we had the fastest vaccine roll-out. It is because of what we see if we look at the local story.
In Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke, we have £56 million of levelling-up fund money, which is bringing masses of regeneration and unlocking hundreds of millions more in private sector investment. We are seeing heritage buildings such as Tunstall library and baths regenerated for future generations, adding to the Conservative-led council’s regeneration and revitalisation of Tunstall town hall, which the Labour party was all too happy to allow to sit and rot for 30 years. In addition, we have the £17.6 million Kidsgrove town deal, which is meaning that we are bringing up to 1,700 new jobs to Chatterley Valley West, reinvesting in our high streets in the town of Kidsgrove and making sure we reopen Kidsgrove sports centre, which was shut because the Labour party, which ran the council at the time, could not be bothered to send a single pound coin to save it. We are refurbishing and reopening it, and letting a local community group run it, because they are local people who champion that cause.
On top of that, we have brought in 500 new jobs through the Home Office coming to our great city; we have £29 million from the transforming cities fund; and we have £31.7 million from Bus Back Better, which will see bus fares cut by 33% with the new £3.50 a day flat fare, create new routes and make sure that people can get around and travel—one third of people in the city do not have access to a motor vehicle. We also have the money to look at opening the Stoke to Leek line.
The litany of success goes on and on and on. We have the £7.5 million for Middlehurst School to become a new special educational needs and disability school, there are the family hubs that we successfully got, and there will be fantastic investment going forward.
Let us also have a look at Labour’s dismal, abysmal and unforgivable local record. Let us not forgot that it was a Labour council that spent £60 million on white elephant projects like a new council office, rather than investing in Burslem indoor market, the Wedgwood Institute and the Queen’s Theatre in the mother town of Burslem, which would have brought regeneration to that fantastic town of our city of Stoke-on-Trent.
Let us look at the fact that jobs were leaving the ceramics sector and going overseas to China, and the Labour party did absolutely nothing to prevent it. Let us have a look at the fact that Labour went on strike for more than 70 years, withdrawing their labour and failing to represent the people on Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke because they believe that they have some God-given right to have that seat and the people should get in line. They sneer, snarl and they arrogantly look down and talk down to the people. That is that attitude the Labour party has always had towards the working people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke.
Labour Members believe that borders are racist and anyone who wants border control is a bigot, which is why, despite the fact that we on this side of the House support the Rwanda deal, those in the party opposite snarl at it. That is why when I introduced the Desecration of War Memorials Bill, the party opposite said, “Oh, it is statues you’re trying to protect.” No, it is war memorials to our glorious dead. It is about time the Labour party stood up for our flag and for our country.
I introduced a new law to increase the fines on rogue and absent landlords who allow our high streets and our heritage to rot. At the last minute, my Labour predecessor was standing with a placard pretending to care, despite having had four and a half years to do something about it. Within two years I changed the law and we are taking those rogue and absent landlords to court. It was the Labour party that was found to be institutionally antisemitic and failed to defend my predecessor, despite the abuse she got. The Labour party—
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
What a rant, Mr Deputy Speaker. We all know that the Prime Minister is unfit for office, but rather than remove him, Tory MPs will tonight be whipped to keep an incompetent, lawbreaker in power, a person who has a problem with the truth.
I do not have confidence in this Government for many reasons, but top of the list is the fact that the percentage of people living in poverty in the Tees Valley, and the percentage of children living in poverty there, has soared to more than 40% in the past 12 years. That is the highest level in the country. The Prime Minister, his former Chancellor and his rotten Government should be thoroughly ashamed. Too many children in the Tees Valley, and many more across the north-east, go to school hungry, and many do not know whether there will be much to eat when they get home at night. Who knows what many of them will do during the extended school holiday period?
Earlier this year, while being grilled by the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister accepted that it is not possible to level up the country without reducing the number of children in poverty. When challenged on why there was not a single mention of child poverty in more than 300 pages of the levelling-up White Paper, he suggested that that was the result of a “purely formal accident”. What the devil does that mean? Whether accidental or deliberate, this was a staggering and unforgiveable oversight on the Government’s part. Last week, I raised the issue of absolute poverty levels with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, but she said that she did not recognise the figures I had quoted. They were her own Department’s statistics. Not only do they not care, but they do not even know their own facts.
Poverty is widely acknowledged to be the leading driver of health, educational and economic inequalities between children growing up in areas such as the north-east and their counterparts in the rest of the country. Research published by End Child Poverty alongside the North East Child Poverty Commission has found that two in five babies, children and young people across our region are growing up poor and having their life chances and opportunities limited as a result. That is as a result of a Conservative Government. This abject failure of children and young people in Tees Valley and the wider north-east will be one of the defining legacies of this Prime Minister, and of anyone who has supported this Government.
Why should any child or young person in the Tees Valley have confidence in the Government when the intolerably high rates of child poverty in our area have somehow been forgotten in the Prime Minister’s flagship policy? Why should anyone have confidence in any of the candidates vying to be the next Prime Minister when not one of them has even acknowledged this fundamental issue, never mind set out any plan to try to tackle it? When one of them, the former Chancellor, showed up in Redcar on Friday in his designer shoes, which cost several times more than most families have to spend on food and other essentials in a month, he had nothing to say about child poverty—nothing.
We have so much talent and potential across the Tees Valley, yet so much of it is wasted as poverty and ill health hold our young people and our population back. Those children and their families need decisive action and a comprehensive joined-up plan to tackle child poverty now, not vague promises of being levelled up in eight years’ time. They need a Government who are willing to put tackling child poverty at the front and centre of their agenda, who are committed to supporting them to thrive and fulfil their potential, not a Government who forget that they even exist.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
On behalf of the city of Southend, I absolutely have confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. My wonderful constituency of Southend West is undeniably healthier, wealthier and especially safer.
Labour Members seem to conveniently forget not only that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—the person they would have put into Downing Street—would have plunged us into the dark days of the 1970s, at the mercy of the militant unions, but that he and eight other Labour Front Benchers would have voted to get rid of our independent nuclear deterrent, fundamentally undermining our national security. That is why the Conservatives won the election so resoundingly three years ago. The British people chose democracy, freedom, security and opportunity over socialism, antisemitism, losing our nuclear deterrent and returning to the European Union.
We have not squandered the 80-seat majority that the British people entrusted to us. Yes, the past three years have been difficult.
Anna Firth
I will not, because of the time. We have had to deal with covid, a global energy crisis and Russia’s illegal, barbaric invasion of Ukraine, yet we have never once lost sight of our core manifesto promise. It is this Government who got Brexit done—not finished, but done, none the less. It is because of Brexit that we were able to develop the world’s first approved vaccine, followed by the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe, as has been highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon).
Anna Firth
No, because of the time. The speed and take-up of our vaccine programme allowed us to lift our restrictions quicker than any other country in Europe, restoring freedom to people and benefiting our economy. This has been possible only because of this Conservative Government and because of Brexit, which was totally opposed by the Labour party.
If the Labour party had been in charge, more people would have died while we waited for the EU’s vaccines. We would have been in lockdown for longer, damaging not just our economy but people’s mental health. Also, the NHS would not have been so well funded and would have been less able to cope with covid when it happened—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Come on. Stop the shouting, please. We do not need it. Let everybody make their contribution in silence, please.
Anna Firth
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a fact that over the past 12 years of Conservative rule, NHS funding has been increased by 42% in real terms. We are now spending £177 billion on our health service. We will be spending an additional £22 billion per year by the end of this Conservative-led Parliament—the highest amount spent on the NHS by any Government ever. Let us not forget that every single one of those funding increases was opposed by the Labour party. Only recently, it voted against providing our NHS with an additional £36 billion of funding—money that is now being used to treat our most sick and vulnerable people.
The Conservative Government have also made us feel safer. Thanks to 12 years of Conservative Government, Britain as a whole, and Southend West in particular, is healthier, wealthier and especially safer.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
To say that I have no confidence in this Government or Prime Minister must be the greatest understatement ever heard in this Chamber, particularly so when we consider his horrendous tenure. Confidence is not something that should be blindly given; like respect, it is something that must be earned.
How can we have confidence in or respect for a Government still headed by a Prime Minister who has shamed the office he holds? He has no respect us—Scotland’s representatives in this place—and we have no confidence in him or his Government. How can we have confidence in a Government and Prime Minister who have consistently—allegedly—lied to or misled this House? He has no respect for us, and we have no confidence in him or his Government. Who can have confidence in a Prime Minister who has been charged and fined by the police for breaking the very rules that he implemented during the pandemic? He has no respect for us, and we have no confidence in him. How can we have confidence in a Prime Minister and Government who have not only presided over sleaze and scandal, but decided to cover for it and even promote to Government positions those at the very heart of them? We have no respect for or confidence in this Government.
Even those in the Prime Minister’s own party now shudder at the thought of being associated with him, as we have seen in the Tory leadership race. Is that any wonder, given that this a Prime Minister who, despite all the scandal, the desecration of office and the criminality, is still clinging on? Even after all the back stabs and head shots by his so-called allies, he still will not go. He is now a zombie Prime Minister. And why? Not for the sake of continuity, stability or Ukraine, but so he can avoid having to find a new venue for a wedding reception. It is laughable, but it is not funny. We are being laughed at by the entire global community. We no longer have any confidence in or respect for this Government.
The people of Scotland had this Prime Minister’s card marked from the outset, and, regardless of who comes after him, we also know that Scotland’s interest will not be high on their agenda when they take up office in No.10. Albert Einstein was still alive the last time Scotland voted Tory, but we do not need to be a genius to work out where Scotland puts her confidence when she goes to the ballot box. It is not here in Westminster, and it is not in any Tory Government. The people place their confidence and trust in the Scottish Government and in the SNP—the party that has been re-elected consistently by the majority of people in Scotland since 2007, the party that is in administration of the majority of the local authorities across Scotland, and the party that has the greatest number of elected parliamentarians in Westminster and in Holyrood. Regardless of the voting franchise, regardless of the political office, the people of Scotland speak clearly. They place their confidence in Scotland’s national party and in the party of Scottish independence.
Let us not kid ourselves: the next Prime Minister will not be any different from any of the others. In the eyes of most Scots, a Tory is a Tory. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. The ducklings on the Tory Back Benches all quacked in agreement and, crucially, in defence of everything that the soon-to-be ex-Prime Minister did. When he played fast and loose with the truth, they supported him. When he broke the law, they quacked their support for him. And they will do the same again for the next one. Scotland has no confidence in them and we have no confidence in this Government.
On behalf of the good people—
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
The past few hours has been—well—an experience, hasn’t it really?
There are two elements to a confidence motion. The first is a lack of confidence in the Government, and the second is the alternative to that Government. I have lived under that alternative, because I live in Sandwell—Labour-controlled Sandwell, socialist Sandwell. Let us take a journey to what life would be like under the Labour party: special educational needs and disability contracts doled out to their mates; dodgy land deals; backhanders to their mates, because they feel like it; dodgy contracts for the council; and no scrutiny. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) does her usual thing. She does not have anything to say, but she chunters from a sedentary position. She failed in Hastings before she went to Luton, because, let us face it, they did not like her there.
The truth of the matter is that I have seen that alternative and it terrifies me. What worries me even more is that Labour Members go along with it. They are all complicit in that corruption in Sandwell, because it is their party that sits there and does it. It is their party that denied the need for commissioners to go in. We now have commissioners controlling that council. It is those young people with special educational needs who are put at risk by them because they failed to do a proper procurement on those contracts. When Labour Members talk about standards in public life, I sit here and I laugh, because it reeks of double standards.
Geraint Davies
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member to accuse Opposition Members who have no connection to the council that he is talking about? He is abusing his privilege to talk about corruption and then pointing at us and saying that it is our fault. It is completely out of order.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I would have brought Mr Bailey up. I am listening very carefully to what is being said. It would help if people did not chunter so that I can hear both sides clearly.
Shaun Bailey
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As a point of clarity, my understanding is that they are all members of the Labour party. It is the Labour party that controlled that local authority. They are all comrades in arms together. Labour Members could have intervened at any point. They promised that they would get grip on this.
Shaun Bailey
No, I will not.
Labour promised that it would get a grip on this, and it did not. So when Labour Members sit there and talk about standards in public life, I tell them to come to Sandwell. Come to Sandwell. If Members want to see the horror that is the alternative, we can show them.
Jonathan Gullis
It will not shock my hon. Friend to hear Members of the Labour party shouting down the fine people of Sandwell and Tipton just as they shout down the people of Kidsgrove, Talke, Newchapel and Stoke-on-Trent North. That is why my hon. Friend will share with us why Labour is going backwards and Conservatives are gaining in his local council as well as in Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council—the No.1 target in the west midlands in May, which Labour lost.
Shaun Bailey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he is right: we are scalping Labour councillors all over the place. As one lady put it to me on the doorstep during the local elections, “I have been Labour all my life. I am Labour through and through, but I cannot vote for that shower.” The truth of the matter is that, when we look at the alternative, it is horrific.
I also want to touch on what this Government have done. What we have is £22.5 million possibly coming into Tipton. We have seen £25 million for Birchley Island in Oldbury dealing with our congestion and transport issues. We have seen £50,000 for the horrendous route between Burnt Tree and Dudley Port, which will mean that, finally, we can start dealing with those horrendous congestion issues and those road safety issues, which is vital to keep people safe. I know from my constituents that they are sometimes spending 45 minutes on our roads, and that messes with their businesses and messes with their standard of life because of how long it is taking them to commute to work and the difficulty that it presents them. It is this Government who have put that money into Sandwell.
It is quite interesting, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I will quite often go to Ministers—my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench—and say, “Look, we need money. We need investment. This is what we want.” They then say to me, “Well, the problem is, Shaun, your local authority has not applied for it.” Then I go to the local authority and say, “What plans do we have on the shelf?” I am referring in particular to the levelling up fund. I then get told, “Oh, well, we don’t have any.” They cannot be bothered. That is the truth with them. They cannot be bothered. For 50 years my communities put their faith in the Labour party, and they were betrayed—it is as simple as that.
I always remember at the general election a man breaking down to me in Tividale in my constituency. He told me he had been Labour all his life, but he realised that the Labour party had lied to him and misled him for most of his life. He felt lied to. He broke down, and that really affected me. When someone feels that their life purpose and their belief system have been mis-sold to them, what do they do? [Interruption.] I am sure there are some quips; Labour Members may find it funny, because Labour has led Sandwell for 50 years. It is their arrogance and their thought process. When I look at the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), he is typical of the Labour privilege that we see. How he can sit there pretending to represent working people is beyond me.
As I round up my comments, the truth is this: my communities have confidence in the Government, because they have seen the difference after 50 years of Labour misrepresenting them. They have seen the investment that has come in, and they have seen the shambles that is the Labour party and the way it has mismanaged our local area. I have total confidence in this Government, and I would not want Labour.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I have no confidence in this Government. The public have no confidence in this Government, and nor do Government Members, 59 of whom put in their own letters to say they had no confidence in this Government. They need to vote with us accordingly tonight.
All political careers end in failure; that is a truism. Unlike past demises, however, this one is based not on policy, but on probity. The degradation and debasement of standards should be about not left and right, but right and wrong. This Government have got all the big calls wrong: we have the highest inflation in 40 years and the biggest tax take in 70, while these leadership contenders who have spent years defending the indefensible now out-vie each other to disown the past 12 years.
The moral is that not every fairy tale has a happy ending. This was not just about ambush by cake; it was about a pattern of behaviour that resulted in the first ever lawbreaker Prime Minister. One misjudgment alone might have been ride-outable, but the cumulative effect of partygate, Paterson, the redecoration of the No. 10 flat, the promotion of an alleged drunken groper to a post that included reporting MPs’ misconduct and the Prime Minister’s saying he had had a memory lapse about that individual’s previous history just proved to be one implausibility too far.
As we have seen today, the PM who as a child wanted to be world king has become King Canute, still defiant and partying to the end, characteristically skipping Cobra meetings—if not quite fiddling while Rome burns, then partying while the country roasts. It brings to mind those suitcases being wheeled down Whitehall on the eve of Prince Philip’s funeral. Meanwhile, our fellow citizens face huge challenges: climate change-induced heatwave, looming strikes, inflation, cost of living crisis, energy crisis, record NHS backlog, passports backlog, Home Office backlog, courts backlog—backlog Britain.
If we are trying to define exactly what Johnsonism is, we would have in there the idea that the rules do not apply to those at the top, self-advancement, Government by slogan and, as Dominic Cummings put it, a “shopping trolley” modus operandi. Remember the pro-EU and anti-EU columns, or the one-time fan of an amnesty for illegal immigrants who now wants to ship off asylum seekers to Rwanda? Multiple signs were already there: those costly London Mayoralty vanity projects, the Jennifer Arcuri improprieties, which are still unresolved, with new people appearing out of the woodwork making similar claims, and even indifference to groping and grabbing. It was all part of a pattern. I was in the now PM’s presence in Acton in 2015—there is footage of it out there—and I was grabbed from behind by one of his aides for wanting to speak to him.
If we consider Imran Ahmad Khan, Neil Parish, Charlie Elphicke and Andrew Griffiths, it does not feel as though sexual misconduct is being stamped on, or out. When an entire Government are rotten to their core, all politicians become tainted and tarnished. It is time to call time on the lot. The first step is today’s vote, but the country is crying out for change. There is a democratic deficit if those of us who are not among the small number of Tory party members have no say in our next PM. We need a general election as soon as possible, to have a say on the next, unelected Prime Minister who emerges from that process, and refresh all 650 of us.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We have just over an hour before the wind-ups begin and I want to accommodate everybody, so we are going to a three-minute limit, with immediate effect.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
I have heard a lot of speeches today from the Opposition. Some have been reasonable and some have been bad, but I do take exception to the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) implying that Conservative Members are privately educated and that there is no working class on the Government Benches. I was brought up on a council estate. I went to a local high school. I had the opportunity to go to university but chose not to; that was my choice. What have the Conservatives done for a working-class kid in Dewsbury? They made me an MP. They made me the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Pakistan and promoted me to a PPS. So if Opposition Members could pass on some advice to the hon. Member for Livingston—
Shaun Bailey
Does my hon. Friend agree that the laugh we just heard from Opposition Members shows their utter contempt for working-class people such as him and me, both from council estates ourselves, who know it was the Conservative Government who gave us the opportunity to be here now?
Mark Eastwood
Absolutely; I totally agree. Opposition Members could do with carrying out their research on Conservative Members, especially the new intake—people like me and my hon. Friend. That is the message I want to pass on.
I am here to make a more positive speech. I am pleased to support a Prime Minister and a Government who have delivered on people’s priorities and stepped up to the plate to support our nation through an unprecedented pandemic. The Government introduced the coronavirus job retention scheme that saved so many jobs by supporting furloughed workers with 80% of their wages, the self-employment income support scheme that paid self-employed individuals up to 80% of their profits, bounce back loans, and the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme—all in support of business. With a business background, I am proud that the Government stepped up to the plate on that one. Further schemes such as Eat Out to Help Out and Kickstart sought to alleviate some of the most pronounced economic effects of the pandemic, supporting citizens and businesses throughout the past two years. As the pandemic progressed, the fantastic network of healthcare professionals and volunteers enabled this Government to deliver a world-class vaccine rollout, the fastest in Europe, to protect our nation’s most vulnerable from the devastating impact of covid.
The Government’s towns fund has helped to regenerate my town centre, where I grew up, with £24.8 million that means we will get back the world-class market that we had before. This was all done under this Government and Prime Minister. I am looking forward to seeing the town being transformed in future.
On education, the Government invested in Kirklees as an educational investment area, with £36 million for schools on provision for those with special educational needs and disabilities. That is amazing for my constituency. As someone who has experienced this personally, I am absolutely proud that we are supporting parents with children from different backgrounds with different issues and difficulties, because we need to level up and give everybody the same opportunity in life.
In summary, the Government have delivered and the Prime Minister has delivered. However, we are looking to replace the Prime Minister with a new leader. I will continue to support this Government and support the new leader as we carry out this crucial agenda.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) even though I am not quite sure what his argument really was.
Most people in this country—in fact, overwhelmingly people in this country; indeed, even in this Parliament—have no involvement in deciding who the next Prime Minister is. However, I will come back to that. It is an important issue whenever a Prime Minister is switched mid-term. At the moment, as many of my hon. Friends have said, we have a massive crisis in the national health service; we have problems with energy costs and how they will affect people’s lives; and we have problems with inflation and how it affects people’s ability to put food on the table. Those things are more important than ever, yet here we are, switching Governments with no prospect, as far as I can tell, of any realistic plan to address those problems.
I will share a quote from Janice Turner, who wrote in Saturday’s Times:
“For the third time in six years, who leads us is being decided by the tiniest sliver of society.”
She refers, of course, to the 150,000 Conservative party members. Margaret from Knowsley made a similar point. She said:
“It is like watching a criminal gang choose its leader. The rest of us have no say in the matter but have to live with the consequences daily in our lives. Except this is about our democracy and who is in charge of our country.”
I think she put it very well.
I have not got time to talk about how we could handle this situation better, but I refer those who are genuinely interested to an article by the noble and learned Lord Sumption that was in The Sunday Times eight days ago. He set out why, without a written constitution in a parliamentary system, this problem must be resolved before we get into this position again, because it threatens to undermine the stability of our democracy.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
I still remember the look on people’s faces when I first won my seat back in 2019—it was the look of hope for the future, because they had felt neglected for generations. To tell the truth, that is why I decided to stand for Parliament, represent the people of Blyth Valley and break the chains of Labour.
One of our first tasks as a Government was to deliver Brexit, which we did, and then to support the country through the pandemic, which we did with the massive vaccine roll-out, the furlough scheme and the support to businesses and individuals. Now we are supporting the people of Ukraine.
In Blyth Valley, people are starting to see the shoots of economic growth. The number of jobs set to come to the area is truly amazing, with Britishvolt, JDR Cable Systems, Merit, the Catapult, Tharsus, the offshore wind industry, the port of Blyth and Dräger, and we also have the towns fund and the future high streets fund. This is true levelling up with a Conservative Government, with an expectation of more than 10,000 jobs. Where once stood a coal-fired power station will stand a gigaplant. The 16th largest building in the world will make the batteries to power thousands of electric vehicles up and down the country.
Dr Luke Evans
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because Britishvolt has its headquarters stationed at MIRA technology park. Is not such levelling up in the midlands and the north-east under this Government exactly why we should have confidence in this Government’s agenda?
Ian Levy
I totally agree, and we are levelling up across the country. The gigaplant will be like a phoenix rising from the ashes of neglect. Even today we can see work being carried out on the Northumberland line, which will connect Ashington to Bedlington station, Bebside, Newsham and Seaton Delaval, and will then connect to the Metro system and into Newcastle Central station.
I have every confidence in this Government. I am under no illusions about the fact that Opposition Members will say, “Well, he would. He is the first Conservative Member of Parliament for Blyth Valley”, but I know when I talk to people in the constituency that they feel there is a definite change and they have hope once again. That is why I have confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
When the Prime Minister took office, he stood on the steps of Downing Street and promised to level up every part of Britain. He said he would close the opportunity gap and, in his words, unleash the power “of every corner” of the United Kingdom. In 2019, he came to Sheffield and made that same pledge. He continues to boast about levelling up as though it has been some gigantic success, but if we dig deep enough beneath the surface, we find that his legacy is one of broken promises, shattered communities and a failure to deliver. The public know that they cannot trust a word that the Government say. They have concluded that levelling up is just another empty slogan that will do nothing to help them in their everyday life.
The effects of 12 years of Conservative mismanagement are plain to see. Only if we remove the Conservative party from power altogether will we see these trends reversed, and today’s vote is a chance to do that. To take just one example, our local authorities’ budgets have been cut to the bone by the Prime Minister and his two Conservative predecessors. Sheffield City Council’s central Government grant has been cut by more than £3 billion in real terms since 2010, which has put an enormous strain on its budgets. The impact has been stark. According to the End Child Poverty coalition, 45% of children in my constituency are in poverty. That really is a shameful statistic. One of the basics of levelling up needs to be ending child poverty once and for all, but in my region, child poverty rates continue to rise year on year. This is not levelling up; this is levelling down, and families across the country are paying the price.
The Conservative party is truly unfit to govern, as it has shown time and again. I am of course pleased to finally see the back of the Prime Minister, but it is clear that whoever takes over cannot be trusted to truly level up. Instead of focusing on the real issues facing people, leadership candidates are trying to stoke culture wars and divide communities. Today, the Met Office warns that unprecedented heatwaves pose a significant risk of death, but the leadership candidates are not prepared to step up to the serious threats posed by climate change. They instead want to water down net zero targets and roll back green initiatives. Perhaps that is not surprising, given that one candidate has seemingly accepted tens of thousands of pounds in donations from a notorious climate change denier. The Conservative party is out of touch, out of ideas and, I hope, soon to be out of power. A new leader will not change any of that.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I would have preferred, as I think my constituents would, these many long hours of debate on confidence in the Government to have been spent discussing the safety of our children and the Online Safety Bill. This is a difficult moment for Labour Members, as they all stood to make the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is aware of roughly what I will say, the Prime Minister of our nation. How would he have fared with his plan for a second referendum on the EU, which he did not even personally believe in? Would he have created the private sector-led vaccine taskforce? When Dame Kate Bingham was first appointed to it, there was no shortage of Opposition Members saying that it was a crony appointment. It was, in fact, a brilliant move, and she worked closely with our multinational pharmaceutical companies, which the right hon. Member for Islington North would happily have abolished, along with our intelligence agencies.
Richard Graham
There is no time, alas.
Would the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) today be defending his Prime Minister’s record on standing up to Putin? We are talking about the man who gave Putin the benefit of the doubt when it came to the murder of a British citizen in Salisbury and the handling of Novichok, which could have killed hundreds, if not thousands. As I say, I understand that this is a difficult debate for Labour.
Nor did we hear any mention from the Scottish National party of the first ever dedicated, ringfenced funding pot for marine energy in the recent renewables auction, which provides £20 million a year for investment in Scottish companies such as Orbital Marine Power, MeyGen Ltd, and Nova Innovation. There was nothing from the SNP about the value of the Prime Minister’s 33 trade envoys, who tirelessly promote Scottish products abroad. None of us has ever lost confidence in Scotland, or in the quality of Scottish products, but we think it is sad that the SNP does not see the value of the United Kingdom promoting Scottish exports all over the world.
On what this Government have achieved, let me highlight first their strong record on the Indo-Pacific pivot, which has led to better relationships across south-east Asia, to the great benefit of those nations and our own; and, secondly, what has been done with levelling up, pride and regeneration in small cities such as my own of Gloucester. There, the levelling-up fund, the station improvement fund and a whole number of improvements have done things that under Labour’s tenure were never even dreamed of.
Let us be in no doubt. There are always things that a Government can do better. For example, I wish this Government were thinking closely and hard about insulation for some of our poorer families to help them through this winter’s energy increase, and maybe that will come. However, I am in no doubt that this is a Government who are delivering, and I have full confidence in them.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
We are here today because we have seen a real decline in our standards in public life, and in particular in the Prime Minister. We have heard many Government Members talk about the positive things in their constituencies, and they clearly want those to continue, but we are here because the Prime Minister was put out of office by those on the Government Benches two weeks ago.
The Government had the opportunity to do things very differently, and I would argue that the rot set in in November last year, when there was an attempt to keep Owen Paterson from censure. I had the emergency debate on standards after that and, dare I say it, that was a much more collegiate and positive debate than this one, because I think there was recognition on all sides of the House that a stop needed to be put to the direction of travel. A constituent said that Mr Paterson’s resignation was not the end, but must be the beginning of an uncompromising campaign to end the corruption in our politics. We are here, and we have been where we have been in the last couple of weeks, because that corruption has not been stopped.
If we look at partygate from a constituency perspective, other than trips to Barnard Castle, I have certainly had no higher volume of emails about anything from constituents, who told me some quite devastating stories. We know how that has gone; it has gone from “There were no parties” to “All rules were followed” to an admission that “There were parties, but we weren’t quite sure what the rules were.” The PM has indicated that he intends to remain as an MP if he remains sitting in this place. Therefore, I do hope that the Privileges Committee will continue with its investigation regardless of whether he is the Prime Minister. If the new Prime Minister, whoever they may be, fails to ensure this, we will know that there is no change to the approach to our standards in public life. Lord Evans believes there has been an erosion, and Lord Geidt clearly did so. Indeed, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) made it clear in his resignation statement that standards have fallen.
To go back to what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) said, the fact that we have ended up here because of a lack of candour about office appointments means that this place is not safe. We cannot with all confidence say that it is safe. That shames and should shame us all, and we should all be committed collectively to doing something about it. By failing to face up to this corrosion and failing to identify the battery acid at the core of their party, the Government have lost people’s confidence because they have lost confidence in their values, and our by-election victories over the last year demonstrate that.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I want to focus on one example of a specific problem with this Government that I think makes it impossible to have confidence in them. Between November last year and the end of March this year, the Prime Minister claimed 10 times at Prime Minister’s questions that more people were in work than before the pandemic. That was untrue. The figures show that total employment is still 366,000 lower than just before the pandemic.
The Prime Minister made that untrue claim twice on 24 November 2021, three times on 5 January 2022, again the following week and then again the following week. He claimed it again on 2 February and on 23 February. On 24 February, the exasperated chair of the UK Statistics Authority wrote to the Prime Minister to point out that the claim was not true. The Prime Minister claimed it again on 27 March.
On 30 March, I asked the Prime Minister at the Liaison Committee whether he accepted that his tenfold statements had been wrong. He replied:
“I think I have repeatedly—and I think I took steps to correct the record earlier.”
Well, he had not corrected the record, and he still has not. In his answer at the Liaison Committee it was clear that he understood what has actually happened since the pandemic, and that about half a million people—mainly older people—have given up on work, substantially reducing the number in work overall. However, four weeks after that discussion on 27 April, the Prime Minister said:
“Let me give them the figures: 500,000 more people in paid employment now than there were before the pandemic began”.—[Official Report, 27 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 754.]
That was even though he had made clear to me on 30 March that he knew that to be untrue.
At the Liaison Committee two weeks ago, the Chair of the Justice Committee
asked:
“How important is the truth to you, Prime Minister?”
The Prime Minister replied, “Very important, Bob.” But it clearly isn’t important, and the record still has not been corrected for any of the 11 instances of the false claim that the Prime Minister knows he has made.
Other examples of a lack of truthfulness have been much more consequential. After negotiating customs checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister went to the Democratic Unionist party conference and announced that there would be no such checks. That was obviously untrue, and the DUP has paid a very heavy political price for taking him at his word. Democracy does not work if Ministers routinely say things that they know to be untrue. Why did they not see through him before?
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I am delighted to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). Morality and probity in public life matters—it really does—and we need to establish that. I was proud to become a Member of Parliament, and I think we believed that and were right to believe it. During my lifetime there have been 10 Conservative Prime Ministers, the bulk of whom would have found the idea of lying to Parliament anathema. Yet I am afraid we have a Prime Minister who has broken that code, and that matters.
I have listened to Conservative Members extolling the virtues of the Prime Minister and the Government. There are things that I would agree with the Prime Minister about, such as Ukraine, on which this country now has a proud record. But across the world, we are now a laughing stock. This country, which was once the hallmark for probity, is now a hallmark for lawbreaking. We know there is potential lawbreaking in terms of the Northern Ireland protocol, because the Prime Minister has not got Brexit done. He has betrayed and made a fool of every Conservative Member of Parliament who stood up today, and in the past, and said, “We’ve got Brexit done.” Brexit has not been done.
There was the attempt to keep Owen Paterson in office, and the overriding of Sir Alex Allan, the Prime Minister’s ethics adviser, who declared that the Home Secretary had broken the ministerial code of conduct. Of course those things are important and matter, but it matters even more that nearly 40% of children in my constituency are living in poverty. In some wards the figure is as high as one in two children. That matters, and the Government are failing abysmally to deal with such things. They should be ashamed. It matters that climate change—the biggest issue our nation faces—hardly got a mention by the Prime Minister or anybody else on the Government Benches. Climate change makes a difference to the futures of children in my constituency, and to children across the planet. The Government are failing on those issues on a day-to-day basis.
In the end, what is ironic about this debate is that we could almost believe that it was not Conservative MPs who decapitated the Prime Minister. They got rid of him—not us—but one would not think that was the case today, given the way they describe their loyalty to the now outgoing Prime Minister. Of course, Cabinet Ministers did not resign. Only recently, when they saw their own futures at stake, did they make a decision to get rid of a losing Prime Minister. Before that, despite all his incompetence and failures, they stuck with him.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The very fact that we are having a debate on a motion tabled by the Government on the Government’s confidence in themselves shows how out of touch with reality they really are. Just 10 days ago, many Government Members were writing open letters to the Prime Minister telling him that they had no confidence in him. Nothing has changed—we still have the same Prime Minister in Downing Street, leading this Government—so I do not know how on earth they are able in all good conscience to vote for this motion this evening. It is bizarre.
We all know that the Prime Minister is unfit for office. Government Members all know it too, but rather than remove him from the position immediately, they have left him in No. 10 at a time when the country needs honest and respected leadership—something that he seems unable to offer. Last week, the Government blocked Labour’s vote of no confidence, and that was after the resignation of more than 50 members of the Prime Minister’s Front-Bench team. In blocking that vote and creating today’s spectacle, it is clear that the Prime Minister has only ever been interested in doing what is right for his own ego, rather than for the good of the country.
Many of the Prime Minister’s former allies resigned from his Cabinet, but rather than remove him, they are indulging in fantasy economics in the leadership contest, distracting themselves from the chaos facing the country with party infighting, and attempting to disassociate themselves from their time in the Prime Minister’s Cabinet of chaos. The Conservative leadership candidates are also trying to wipe the slate clean after 12 years of Conservative rule, but on their watch taxes are going up, food and energy bills are spiralling out of control, crime is rising, and many of the public services we rely on have simply stopped working.
The Prime Minister is squatting in No. 10, presiding over a zombie Government, while the country is gripped by a spiralling cost of living crisis and worsening backlogs caused by his Government’s economic policies and political failures. In just the last few days, I have spoken to constituents who are living through the Government’s cost of living crisis. A couple I met who are both in full-time employment get to the middle of the month and have to rely on the local food pantry to support them in putting food on the table for them and their young child. That is utterly depressing and shameful. Another couple told me that they visit the local baths at least three times a week for a swim at a reduced rate, thanks to the Welsh Government. That is great news for their health and wellbeing, but they also use it as an opportunity to have a shower to save on water and heating costs at home. We should not be normalising this in the 21st century.
We should have a Prime Minister and a Government who focused on dealing with these issues and others that are causing great hardship across the country. Instead, we have more chaos, which is why I simply have no confidence in the Government. Since the Prime Minister announced his intention to resign on 7 July, the Government have dropped legislation and called off a number of Bill Committees on issues of the utmost importance, from protecting people online and fraud to national security and levelling up. That is a direct consequence of the chaos engulfing the Government at this moment.
The country does not need a fourth Conservative Prime Minister in six years. Britain needs a fresh start and a Labour Government, which is why we will vote against the Government’s motion this evening.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I have no confidence in this Government. I know that a few people say, “Oh, the zombie Prime Minister made a few errors because he didn’t know he was at the party, he didn’t know it was a party, he didn’t know if he was drinking at the time and he didn’t know the law even though he wrote the law, so we should let him off—but he got the big issues right.” I put it to the House that he did not get the big issues right.
Take covid: 200,000 people dead—the highest number in Europe. That is a complete disaster. People say, “We got the vaccine out.” Well, we had the vaccine. The Prime Minister claims, “If we had been in the European Medicines Agency, we wouldn’t have been able to roll it out.” That is not true; we would have. He keeps repeating that untruth again and again.
Billions have been lost in procurement over this whole episode. How do we know? Well, Wales was given £1 billion to deliver test, track and trace, and it spent only £0.5 billion, because it delivered that service through public health and local authorities, instead of through people putting their hand in the till and taking the money, as happened when the local landlord of the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), got a contract. It is absolutely ridiculous!
What about the economy, which is supposed to be doing well? We just heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) that the Prime Minister consistently stands at the Dispatch Box and says, “There’s half a million more people in jobs,” or whatever he says that week, when he knows that those are only the payroll figures, which do not include the self-employed. If we asked the Official for National Statistics, we would learn that there are something like half a million fewer people in jobs. The Prime Minister is intentionally, in my view, giving the wrong impression of the economy. We have the slowest recovery in the G7, the slowest projected growth and the highest inflation. It is a disaster. Then we are told, “He’s got Brexit done,” but 25% of the fruit is not being picked and we are not butchering the meat. Some 40,000 pigs have been culled, yet the price of ham is up by 27%. Is that a success?
What about trade? Trade is down 15%. What about those trade deals? If we had got the Japanese trade deal through the EU, we would have made £1 billion more in GDP. What about efficiency? Passports—you’ve got to wait 12 weeks. Driving licences? All the civil servants were pushed into Brexit management—botched Brexit—and now the Government are going to cut 90,000 civil servants. That is going to go well, isn’t it, if you are in a queue?
Then there is the Northern Ireland protocol. We are pulling out of the single market, so business will fail, we will mess up the peace process and we will break international law. Talking of which, what about Rwanda? Israel did not want to send its refugees to Rwanda. Why? Because they were being tortured, raped and killed, yet we are. And, oh, the solution to that is to pull out of the European convention on human rights, which Churchill put together. Our fundamental values of democracy, freedom and human rights are being ripped up at a time when China is abusing democracy in Hong Kong and the human rights of the Uyghurs, and confronting Taiwan. Russia is moving in and we are abandoning the right to protest, playing into Putin’s hands. Even the windfall tax is being given back to the oil producers.
The fact is that the Labour Government produced 40% growth in 10 years and doubled spending on health and education. We need another Labour Government to invest in growth for a better future.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The motion is right in one respect. The debate we need to have was never just about one lawbreaking, Parliament-proroguing, office-abusing Prime Minister; it was always about this tawdry, toxic Government as a whole.
Every single MP on the Government Benches who stood by the current Prime Minister while he dissembled and denigrated his way through two and half years is implicated in his offences. Every one of them who stood by while the partying happened, while the attempts to cover up bullying in the Home Office happened and while the rules were being changed to protect their mates while sexual harassment was being brushed under the carpet, is complicit. Did those who finally resigned really only just realise that the Prime Minister was serially incapable of honesty, of integrity, of decency? Of course not. They have been a Government with no respect for standards in public life, no respect for the law and no respect for the British public.
Like all of us, I stand here to represent my constituents. Frankly, the Government do not have the right even to ask my constituents to have confidence in them. That they seek to do so tonight only underscores their abject failure to even begin to understand what integrity means. That is why we need not just a change of leader, but a change of Government and an immediate general election.
I do not have time to go through all the different reasons for not having confidence in the Government, but let me mention just two. Today’s debate is happening while the country is in the grip of the kind of deadly weather event that so many of us have been warning about for so long and which will only get worse in the future. Yet the Government are planning to green-light new extraction of oil and gas reserves from the North sea knowing it will make no difference to consumer bills or energy security, but a world of difference to an already overheating planet. That approach is not just immoral but criminally negligent.
On democracy, it would be easy to dismiss the Government as simply the incompetents they are, but that would be wrong. The populist style of politics they have inflicted on this country is deeply dangerous. They risk a frightening descent into what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) bravely and correctly called out in May: fascism. As she said back then, fascism does not always arrive wearing jackboots. It can come knocking more subtly than that. Students of fascism have helpfully suggested some of its signs: disinformation, misogyny, disdain for intellectuals, social conformity, suppression of trade unions, threats to human rights, the creation of hate groups and abuse by them, the rise of militarisation and, of course, racism, which is at the heart of fascism. Do any of those sound familiar?
There is a pattern here if only we are prepared to see it. We like to tell ourselves that we live in a mature democracy, yet this populist Government have deliberately set out to weaken the very institutions that define a liberal democracy. They have set out to make it easier for them to cling to power, whether they enjoy the confidence of the electorate or not. So no, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not have confidence in this Government. That the Prime Minister’s political career has ended in failure and disgrace is thoroughly deserved. Anyone voting for the motion tonight deserves the same fate.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Three minutes is not enough to sum up or express the misery, suffering and hardship caused to people in my constituency and across this country by this rotten Government. Of course I have no confidence in the Government, and of course my constituents have no confidence in the Government. They saw through the Prime Minister from the very start, and millions and millions more people are seeing through the Prime Minister. Just think of all the suffering that has been caused in the last 12 years of this Government to those who have had the bedroom tax inflicted on them and those who have been humiliated with the indignity of the appalling unfair fitness to work tests, where they are signed off as if they were fit to work when they are not. Think of the people deported from this country during the Windrush scandal. Think of all the people who died unnecessarily because of covid. The Government brag about their covid response, but I think it is some kind of sick joke. We were told once that 20,000 covid deaths would be a “good” outcome. There have now been more than 200,000 deaths. If we had had the same rate as Germany, Japan, Canada or Australia, tens of thousands of people would still be alive, but the truth is that to the Government, that does not seem to matter.
The Government have attacked hard-won civil liberties and hard-won democratic rights. There has been anti-trade union bile and more anti-trade union legislation, making it harder and harder for trade unions to take strike action legally. We have the Government’s draconian attacks on the right to peaceful protest. They have also pushed forward a voter suppression strategy through the introduction of voter ID.
It is good riddance to this disgraceful, law-breaking Prime Minister, but the truth is that it is not one politician or one Prime Minister who has created the situation in our country where there are more food banks than branches of McDonald’s. It is not one Prime Minister who has created the hostile environment for migrants and for those who people presume are migrants. It is the whole rotten system. The truth is that, over the past 12 years, we have seen what the reality of Conservative Government means to people in our country. The reason that Conservative Members decided to get rid of him is that they want to push forward with even more unpopular policies, pushing down living standards and letting the billionaires and the oil and gas giants off the hook. They merely want to find somebody who has the political capital to push forward that abhorrent policy, and that is why we need a general election.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
If people can trim a bit off their speeches, everyone will get equal time.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
In Scotland, 2022 is the Year of Stories, so it is nice that Conservative Members have come in today with their contribution to fiction and rewriting history. The Prime Minister and his Government, the Ministers who support him, sit in a parallel universe of self-delusion. This is the kind of situation that happens in failed states with an autocrat in power and no written constitution.
It is impossible to have confidence in this Tory Government because they do not even have confidence in themselves. Resignations proved that they do not want the Prime Minister and it is ludicrous to pretend today that they ever did—although perhaps that is why Conservative Members were so rowdy earlier. Having seen some of the leadership candidates coming forward, they are feeling a bit of regret, guilt and remorse. The problem with those leadership candidates is that they were all loyal to the Prime Minister. They stood up to defend him and they now claim that somehow, magically, they had absolutely nothing to do with him and the failures of this woeful Tory Government.
The Government’s failures are legion, whether we are talking about PPE contracts, the people excluded from support schemes, the failure to support businesses through the cost of living crisis, or the Home Office’s ludicrous incompetence, as I know from all manner of constituents I see in my surgeries on a Friday. The Government are completely neglecting the COP26 legacy, just as we see the climate crisis on our doorstep here in Parliament.
There is also the denial of democracy. The Prime Minister said earlier that he stands up for freedom and democracy, but that could not be less true. My Glasgow Central constituents look to this place and see nothing that Westminster can offer them. In Scotland, democracy did not stop on 18 September 2014. The right to self-determination is not a one-time thing. It is the right of the people to decide how they want to be governed, and the people of Scotland will have that right again.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
This is a Government in whom I can have absolutely no confidence. This morning, I attended a meeting with members of the Criminal Bar Association and listened to junior criminal barristers talking about the deplorable state of the criminal justice system. It is an extraordinary state of affairs that under this Government, barristers are on strike over pay and our legal system is crumbling. They do incredibly important work—the majority of it funded by legal aid—yet the median income of junior criminal barristers in their first three years is £12,200, which is below the minimum wage. As a result, we are seeing an exodus from the profession. Between March 2021 and March 2022, more than 1,000 trials were postponed at the last minute because no barristers were available to prosecute or defend the case. That has had serious consequences for victims, witnesses and defendants in what were already very stressful situations.
The Criminal Bar Association has been clear that without fee increases sufficient to stem flight from the profession and promote recruitment, the systemic failure that the criminal justice system is experiencing will become endemic, rendering the reduction and elimination of the unacceptably high backlog unachievable. I ask the Government to engage with the Criminal Bar Association as a matter of urgency. The Government are due to lay a statutory instrument within days that would increase fees, but it would apply only to new cases, leaving 58,000 cases stuck in the backlog that would not benefit from any increase.
Now for the Government’s handling of the civil service and their pursuit of the small state. They plan to cut 91,000 jobs from the civil service within three years, which will damage the economy and the delivery of public services. In the north-west, it could mean the loss of more than 11,000 jobs; on Merseyside, more than 3,500 jobs; in Wirral, more than 400 jobs. As the Public and Commercial Services Union has highlighted:
“Making cuts will only make things worse, make waiting lists longer for those seeking passports and driving licences, make telephone queues longer for those with tax enquiries.”
As we experience an unprecedented heatwave that represents a threat to life, the Prime Minister has skipped an emergency Cobra meeting and stayed in the luxury of Chequers for a party, yet again putting parties before his responsibilities—another in the long line of insults from this Prime Minister to the people of the United Kingdom. This Government are allowing crucial institutions to fall into chaos, are planning to slash funding from overstretched Departments and are propping up a discredited Prime Minister who is unfit for public office. I have absolutely no confidence in this Government.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I have no confidence in the Prime Minister and this Government. My inbox is filled with emails from constituents telling me how the current Prime Minister and his Government are not fit to lead our country. Conservative Members seem to have amnesia; they seem to have forgotten that they recently had a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister. They also recently had an exodus of Ministers resigning from the Prime Minister’s Cabinet. They are now in the middle of a contest to choose the third leader that the Tory Government will have had in the four years that I have been in this place.
The Prime Minister is a significant risk to our country, as we have seen time and again. It was wrong that he put the former Deputy Chief Whip in such an important position of responsibility and authority when he knew that he had displayed sexually harmful behaviour towards others. Since the PM has been in office, he has gone from one scandal to the next, just like in a soap opera, but Parliament is not a soap opera, nor should it be reduced to one.
The Prime Minister is a safeguarding risk, but he is also a national security risk. His careless words as Foreign Secretary led to evidence being given against Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe that led to her spending five years incarcerated. Anoosheh Ashoori, my constituent, spent four years in prison in Iran. The Government should have repaid the debt to Iran a lot sooner, which could have brought them home even sooner. Then there was the private meeting that the Prime Minister had with the ex-KGB agent Alexander Lebedev in Italy. What was that about?
These are a few of the many incidents that have been inappropriate, dangerous, disgraceful and lawbreaking. The Prime Minister unlawfully prorogued Parliament. He did not lock down fast enough at the beginning of the pandemic, which could have saved lives. His former adviser even said that the Prime Minister resisted the autumn lockdown in 2020 because he thought only over-80s die of covid. How ridiculous and insulting is that?
Millions in taxpayers’ money was lost as Ministers signed off deals for PPE that was not used. The Government’s test and trace system failed to cut infection levels, despite being funded by £37 billion of taxpayers’ money. The then Chancellor wrote off £11.8 billion in public funds. There was the U-turn on keeping overseas aid spending at 0.7%; the refurbishment of the Downing Street flat and the questions about who paid for the £840-a-roll wallpaper; the Tory Ministers being allowed to help a Tory donor to avoid paying a new tax on his housing development; the Owen Paterson scandal, where the Prime Minister tried to change the standards rules to save his friend; and, of course, partygate. It is clear that this Government are not up to the job of governing our country, and the only solution is a general election.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Today, MPs have the chance to rid ourselves of this zombie Government as they desperately try to survive, stumbling forward with no purpose and no thought for the people they trample over in their pursuit of self-preservation. Every day this Government are in power, they continue to make people suffer. Indeed, this weekend we saw that the Prime Minister was more committed to partying and flying fighter jets than to attending Cobra meetings. Does he know how insulting it is that while my constituents have been worrying about putting food on the table, he has been partying and having joyrides?
Meanwhile, the Home Secretary will not even show up at the Home Affairs Committee to answer crucial questions. To my constituents who are worried about their passports, and those of them who work in Her Majesty’s Passport Office, this hiding away does not show leadership; it shows a dysfunctional Government on their deathbed. With my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), I had agreed to meet the Schools Minster to discuss new provisions on special educational needs. The next day, the Department had no Ministers at all. The people of this country have been abandoned and forgotten as the Conservative party fights among itself.
I am guessing that the reason we could not debate the Labour motion of no confidence is that the Prime Minister is scared. He is scared of his record being criticised, he is scared of his party telling people what they actually think of him, and he is scared of being subjected to any real scrutiny. The Conservatives campaigned on a promise to level up the north-east, but we now have the highest rate of child poverty anywhere in the UK. This is levelling down, and it is criminal.
The Government were shamed into U-turning on backing free school meals outside term time and on dumping sewage in rivers. In another U-turn, they finally brought in Labour’s windfall tax policy to help people with the cost of living. The public are not fools, and they no longer have confidence in this shambolic Government. While the Tories have U-turned so much that their Front Benchers must be dizzy, the country has turned away from this toxic, corrupt Conservative party, and the frightful four who are jostling for power know it, as they have all ruled out an early election.
I say to Conservative Members, “Do the right thing for Britain, the right thing for your constituents, and the right thing for democracy. Free us from the chains of this zombie Government and this lame duck Prime Minister, and give the people of this country what they truly need—a fresh start and a Labour Government.”
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I am sure that many in the Chamber will have found last night’s ITV programmes eye-catching. We sat through some of Britain’s most surreal and melodramatic reality TV. I hope it will be noted in Hansard that I am not talking about last night’s episode of “Love Island”; the sniping, the mud-slinging and the bickering from each of the Tory leadership candidates made the contestants in Casa Amor seem positively tame by comparison.
In all seriousness, last night’s leadership debate only further undermined my confidence in this Conservative Government and their ability to deliver for the country. Front-Bench and Back-Bench Tory MPs alike offered no practical solutions to the biggest problem facing my constituents: the cost of living crisis. My constituents are concerned about their rising energy bills, the extortionate cost of petrol, the sky-high cost of the food shop, and record high inflation.
A recent survey that I conducted suggested that 95% of my constituents think the Government should do much more to help people to deal with the cost of living crisis. Despite that, absolutely nothing that this Government, or any possible future Prime Minister, are saying has addressed the escalating crisis. The mud-slinging on display within the Conservative party is completely detached from reality. It seems that we are being led by a reality TV Government—a Government who are only interested in petty squabbles, manufactured disagreements and voting off the next contestant, when they should be entirely focused on introducing timely and effective measures that will ease the cost of living crisis, reduce child poverty, address skyrocketing ambulance and accident and emergency waiting times, and reduce crime and antisocial behaviour.
We desperately need a Government who are rooted in this reality, but, perhaps unsurprisingly, I do not believe we will ever get that from the Conservative party, which is why I have no confidence in this Government. In Parliament and across the country, confidence in the Government is rapidly draining away. After 12 long years of Tory mismanagement, Britain clearly needs a fresh start.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Lord Hague was right, David Cameron was right, and in June 2019 Max Hastings said:
“I was Boris Johnson’s boss: he is utterly unfit to be prime minister.”
Now we have a Prime Minister squatting in No. 10 or partying at Chequers. If he needs help with moving, Gary’s Removals or Cleavers in my constituency are available. He is a Prime Minister who 10 days ago scrambled around trying to keep his premiership from sinking, but he rearranged his deckchair Cabinet, desperate to not go down as the worst Prime Minister in history.
The Government still claim that they got the big calls right, but they are rewriting history. They sought to change the rules over Owen Paterson. They disposed of PPE without replacing it, ahead of what was to be the pandemic, then they blew £37 billion on the test and trace scheme and lost £4 billion to fraud. They bodged the Brexit deal, which has led to a 4% hit to the UK economy. They claimed that they were the lead nation in supporting Ukraine, but when Crimea was invaded in 2014 they refused to provide or sell weapons to that country, preferring instead to normalise relations with Russia. Now, with the economy in crisis, we have one in 15 suffering with covid, we have ambulance services and social care in crisis and we have the worst inflation in the G7 and the worst growth anywhere in the G20 except Russia.
Now we have the Conservative party leadership contest, which is seemingly a triennial navel-gazing event. The public will not forgive this. We had it in 2016, in 2019 and now in 2022. This is like the three-year itch. I hate to disabuse this Government of their belief that they are irresistible to the public, but after Wakefield, after Chesham and Amersham, after North Shropshire and after Tiverton and Honiton, the public have stated, loud and clear, that they feel misled by this Government, who have lost the public trust. Two weeks ago, a YouGov survey found that, irrespective of the new leader, 57% of the public wanted a general election; 27% said that they were against that and 17% did not know. I fear that Conservative Members are not listening to the public. They are out of touch. They should give way to public opinion and give way to a general election. The public have no confidence in this Government, and I am on the side of the public as usual.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Former Conservative Cabinet colleagues are publicly accusing each other of economic incompetence, of negligence in preventing fraud and even of being a Liberal Democrat, yet after defenestrating their party leader because they had no confidence in him, Conservative Members have decided to leave the man in place as Prime Minister of this Government. As a result, the public have no confidence in them. That is clear because the Government refuse to call a general election, as they have no confidence that they would win it.
The 6.6 million people waiting for treatment in the NHS have no confidence in this Government. The parents of the 350,000 children on that waiting list have no confidence in them. The 50,000 imaginary nurses currently housed in the 40 presumably non-existent hospitals have no confidence in them either. The taxpayers paying the highest level of tax for 70 years and facing the highest inflation in 40 years have no confidence that this Government have the ability to tackle the record £2 trillion of debt, the highest peacetime debt the UK has ever seen.
The victims of crime who have watched crime rise by 18% while prosecutions fall have no confidence in this Government. The people awaiting their passports because of the chaos in the Home Office have no confidence that they will be able to travel abroad for either business or a family holiday. The refugees who have a well-founded fear of persecution in Syria or Afghanistan have no confidence that they will not be deported to a country where they have no family and no connection. Women and girls have no confidence that this Government, with their inability to properly tackle sexual predation in their own ranks, will deal with the violence against them. Minority communities who experience racial profiling and have been outraged as police shared racist photos among themselves have no confidence that this Government will press for real reform.
The families and friends of the 72 who died in Grenfell Tower have no confidence that, five years on, this Government have acted to make others safe. The 2 million families depending on food banks to feed their children have no confidence that this Government understand what it means to see their children go to bed hungry. The 5.5 million public sector workers whose real-terms wages have stagnated and declined in the past 12 years have no confidence that they can continue to pay their rent, with 9% inflation eroding their pay still further. A blind eye has been turned to jobs for sexual favours, to ministerial bullying, to crony contracts and to wine time Fridays—although people did ask “WTF?”—yet this Prime Minister wants to stay on as caretaker. Ponder that word. Is there any word in the entire English language that describes this Prime Minister less than “caretaker”? He is a reckless narcissist, and nobody inside or outside this Chamber should have confidence in his Government.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The winner of the current leadership contest will be the fourth Conservative Prime Minister since 2016. The Conservatives really have turned government into a game of musical chairs, to the point where the world’s oldest political party is not a credible or coherent organisation at all. It is a coalition of chaos led by a Prime Minister who embodies the vacuum of moral purpose at its heart.
They say that a fish rots from its head, but let us not forget that every single Conservative Member is complicit. They propped him up and defended the indefensible, so the entire fish is rotten. That is why it makes no difference who wins this leadership contest, and it is why a general election, and a fresh start with a Labour Government is the only viable option for our country.
We cannot in all good conscience allow this man, a man who put our national security at risk by holding clandestine meetings with a former KGB officer, to carry on squatting in Downing Street over the summer. This zombie Government are set to limp on in parallel with the frankly embarrassing leadership contest, which not even the candidates want to see played out in public. They are dodging scrutiny, and no wonder. They are offering hundreds of billions of pounds in unfunded tax cuts, but nothing for the millions of families who will face a choice between eating and heating this autumn. There is not a word on boosting productivity or driving the modern manufacturing renaissance that our country so desperately needs, and no mention whatsoever of the Conservative party’s backlog Britain, with the Passport Office in meltdown, A&E queues off the scale, courts mired in delays and a broken asylum system costing the taxpayer £4.7 million a day.
Backlog Britain is not simply the result of the Government’s failure to plan for the end of lockdown. The multiple system failures we now see are the result of 12 years of Tory incompetence and indifference. Growth, investment and productivity have stagnated since 2010, and our public services have been hollowed out, leaving our country profoundly lacking in the resilience we needed to weather the covid storm. The Government’s failure to invest has impacted on our national finances, on workers’ pay packets and on our public services, and it has left our private sector vulnerable to major shocks such as the pandemic, the war and the Prime Minister’s botched Brexit deal.
We should be in no doubt that authoritarian states such as China and Russia have been waiting in the wings, ready to pounce and to exploit our overexposed and vulnerable assets and supply chains. Labour has a plan to make, buy and sell more in Britain. After 12 years of a stagnating Tory economy, low growth and broken promises, we need a fresh start, not just a change at the top.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope you caught the Prime Minister’s surreal bravura performance, which was rather clouded by the fact he did not realise that his own Government tabled the motion. There was not a cheep about being booted out by his own party, finally, after breaching his own rules on partying while my constituents could not hold their loved one’s hand as they were dying. There was not a cheep about Marcus Rashford shaming this Government into feeding hungry, poor children during the school holidays.
As Conservative Members brag about this Government getting Brexit done, they forget that they were continually warned about what Brexit would mean for families in Scotland and the rest of the UK—£1,400 a year and a fall in GDP. Well, it has happened, folks. And the latest polling shows that more people think Britain was wrong to vote to leave the EU.
There was not a cheep about being prepared to flout international law after he changed his mind on signing the Northern Ireland protocol. There was not a cheep about illegally proroguing Parliament.
Scotland has a different Government and deals with people in an entirely different way. We respect people and we treat them with dignity and respect when they need help. Here, this Westminster Parliament is believed to be sovereign, whereas in Scotland we know that that is not true; in Scotland, the people are sovereign. They elected a Parliament last year with a majority for independence, but this Tory Government are absolutely determined to keep Scotland in the Union. Self-determination apparently does not apply in Scotland. Even the—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I want both Front Benchers to be heard with civility, please. I call Angela Rayner.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Today’s debate has been very revealing. We heard a speech from the Prime Minister as delusional as the Transport Secretary’s leadership bid, but sadly not as brief. He claimed that the deep state was plotting against him. Even now, he cannot either take responsibility or face reality—inspired not by Churchill or even Thatcher, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) said, by Trump. The truth is that this Prime Minister is the danger to our democracy and to our national security every day he clings on. I note that he cannot even be bothered to meet the conventions of this House and be here for the wind-ups like other hon. Members. The only deep state relevant tonight is the one he has left the country in. He claimed the two pillars of government were a dynamic economy and strong public services. I don’t think he has been watching the other debates—[Interruption.] Ah, hi! Better late than never, Mr Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has finally arrived, but I do not think he has been watching the other debates. His Foreign Secretary said that the
“economic strategy that we have at the moment, simply isn’t working”
and that ambulance waiting times were “appalling”. The Trade Policy Minister said that
“we are going to be one of the most uncompetitive nations”
and that
“public services are in a desperate state”.
And they are the ones who are still members of this Government.
The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch) asked: “Why should the public trust us? We haven't exactly covered ourselves in glory”. I agree. His former Chancellor said that the next Prime Minister would have to
“restore trust, rebuild our economy and reunite our country”.
For all the bluster we heard from Conservative Members today, I think those damning words say it all. And how many of them said the Prime Minister was honest? How many would put him in their own shadow Cabinet? [Interruption.] You will be, don’t worry; that was not a misspeak. How many would put him in their shadow Cabinet, as it is soon to be? It was one less than the number of fingers the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) raised to the public when she was appointed.
That is the standard of the Government he now leads—not exactly a ministry of all the talents. Will the last person in Downing Street please turn out the lightweights? As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) said, while our country is in crisis, our Government are in chaos. As a national emergency was declared, where was the Prime Minister when Cobra was called? He was preparing for another party—I hope it went well. You couldn’t make it up! He was missing in action while Britain boils. My hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), among others, noted the tidal wave of sleaze and scandal that swamped the Prime Minister and the human impact of ministerial misconduct on its victims. But, as my hon. Friends the Members for West Ham (Ms Brown) and for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) said, this Conservative Government have also been a catastrophe for our whole country. We have had 12 years of Tory failure: 12 years of low growth; 12 years of a stagnating economy; and 12 years of broken promises. And that is just another verdict from his own Foreign Secretary.
What of the crises facing us now? On the cost of living crisis, the Government have no answers. On climate change, they have no answers. On backlog Britain, they have no answers. They are not just asleep at the wheel; they are steering us straight into the eye of the storm. It is no wonder that so many hon. Members have drawn the conclusion that Britain needs a fresh start. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) summed up this Government’s record on tackling Islamophobia.
I agree with one comment that was made from the Government Benches, and that is that the office of Prime Minister is greater than the person who holds it. As so many of my hon. Friends have noted, this Prime Minister is simply not fit to fill that office, but the Conservative party plans to indulge him for the next seven weeks. A caretaker known for no care, every day he is in Downing Street he does more damage. He should be long gone. I say to Members on both sides of the House: let us tell this Prime Minister to go, and to go now. Enough is enough.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Dominic Raab)
I rise to proudly defend the record of this Government under this Prime Minister, and to speak in favour of the motion before the House. The Government under this Prime Minister have steered the country through some of the most difficult challenges in living memory.
This Government under this Prime Minister got the big calls right on the vaccine roll-out—the fastest and most effective in Europe. We would not have been able to do that if we had listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the Leader of the Opposition, because we would have been tied to the EU’s approach, with all of its limitations. [Interruption.] Labour Members chunter from a sedentary position, but it is worth reflecting on how many lives and livelihoods it would have cost us if we had listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Labour Members really ought to have a bit more contrition.
Next, the Prime Minister and this Government took the tough call to come out of lockdown. It was around this time last year and in the teeth of opposition from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, backed up by his colleagues. As a result, we emerged with the fastest growing economy in the G7 last year, with 12 million jobs saved by furlough and in a strong position to face down the economic headwinds that have followed. Again, Labour Members might show at least a bit of remorse for their spineless, vacuous fence-sitting. The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but I thought that the leader of the Labour party would appreciate the opportunity to look back with the benefit of hindsight at some of the mistakes that he has made. That is what he does; that is what they do.
I listened very carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the list of criticisms that he levelled at the Government. At the end—he bored on for quite some time—he said:
“I know that there has been fearmongering that this motion might lead straight to a general election…that is complete nonsense”.
It must be the first time in history that the Leader of an Opposition has pushed for a vote of no confidence but has not come out and called for a general election. That is the Labour party under the right hon. and learned Gentleman: all critique, no cojones.
Now, as we face a global fight against inflation, caused by the aftershocks of covid and the war in Ukraine, we again face a series of tough calls. We have put in place, under this Government and under this Prime Minister, an unprecedented package of targeted support to help those struggling the most to make ends meet. But we have to control inflation, we have to rein it, and that includes the way we address public sector wage demands. The consequence of failing to curb inflation—the direct result of giving in to excessive public sector wage demands—would be to keep inflation higher for longer and to have a further increase in interest rates. That reckless abdication would hit the poorest the hardest, and it would strike not just the lowest incomes in our society but the mortgages of working and middle-class families across the country. Conservative Members are committed to that wage restraint, coupled with an extensive package of support for the poorest and most vulnerable to get inflation down as soon as possible, which is the only credible approach.
What has Labour been doing about it? Members on the Labour Front Bench ignored the leader of their party and defied the memorandum that he sent in June ordering them not to back the RMT union. They actively backed the most militant demands led by that union, whose irresponsible strike action caused widespread disruption to people’s lives and livelihoods. It was not just the usual virtue-signalling tweets; many of those Members joined the RMT picket lines, backing the unions over the public. The right hon. and learned Gentleman showed that he cannot control or lead his party, and he cannot stand up to the public in the face of strikes coming down the line.
Michael Fabricant
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He may not agree with me, but I think that he is being a little unfair to the Leader of the Opposition. The pointless motion today, which he knows—[Interruption.] Oh, yes! The Leader of the Opposition demanded it, and the Leader of the Opposition is now getting it. The motion that he asked for and is getting today will unite the Conservative party more than anything else that he could possibly have done.
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is more, the behaviour of those on the Labour Benches will unite the country. We know why they have not stood up to the unions, including the RMT, since 2015. The Labour party HQ and the local Labour party branches have guzzled up some £68 million in donations from the unions. It is the same old story. The Labour party cannot stand up for the people of this country because it is so deeply buried in the pockets of the unions.
While Labour Members play their games and stand on the side of the unions rather than the public, we will get on with delivering for the British people: unemployment close to a 50-year low, a rise in the national insurance threshold—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I cannot hear what Mr Raab is saying.
Dominic Raab
The Opposition do not want to hear it. They never want to talk about the fact that unemployment is close to a 50-year-low, or about the rise in the national insurance threshold, which is the biggest personal tax cut in a decade to support hard-working people across the country; the record levels of doctors and nurses in our precious NHS, only because we have the economic strength to fund them; the fact that violent crime and theft are down since Labour was in office, and reoffending is down because of the action that we have taken; the extra money that we provided for more police officers, which Labour opposed—that is true—and the tougher sentencing powers for dangerous and violent sexual offenders that we passed only recently in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which Labour opposed.
Jess Phillips
While the right hon. Gentleman is jogging through his ideas—let us call them that—will he comment on what I spoke about and say whether he thinks that the Conservative party, under this Prime Minister, has successfully handled cases of sexual harassment and violence within its own ranks?
Dominic Raab
We have zero tolerance, and the systems are in place. Let me tell the hon. Lady—she talks a lot about this—that the number of convictions for rape has risen by two thirds in the past year. When it comes to supporting the victims of crime—[Interruption.] I have listened to her, but she never talks about this: we have quadrupled the investment in support services for victims since the last year of the last Labour Government. If she really felt so strongly about these issues, why did she not vote for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act? The truth is that only the Conservatives are willing to take the concerted action to stand up for victims, to stand up for the public and to keep our streets safe.
When it comes to our international security, which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) raised, it is this Prime Minister and this Government who showed the international leadership to fund, to supply, to train and to support the military capabilities of the Ukrainian forces, to sanction the Russian oligarchs and the businesses that finance President Putin’s war machine, to provide the humanitarian aid that the Ukrainian people need and to welcome those fleeing from Russian forces. What about the Labour party?
The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne wanted the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) to lead us. [Interruption.] Well, he spoke earlier, but he is not in his place now. The whole House knows what that would have meant: out of NATO, with Trident dismantled. They would have left our No. 1 alliance and given up our ultimate national security insurance policy at precisely the wrong time.
Sally-Ann Hart
Will my right hon. Friend just clarify whether it is £68 million that the Labour party has guzzled since 2015, and whether that includes the £500,000 that a Chinese spy gave to a member of the Labour party to pay for their son to be an employee?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which I believe is now a matter of public record. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne backed a leader who the former head of MI6 said—I will quote, so we have this accurately for the record—denigrated his own country and
“embraced the interests of its enemies and opponents”.
That is who Labour supported. The Opposition have no business talking about national security.
I am proud of the record of this Government under this Prime Minister. Labour Members want to talk about trust, but they cannot be trusted on jobs, they cannot be trusted to keep our streets safe and they cannot be trusted with our national security. I commend this motion to the House.
Question put.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Doncaster Sheffield airport
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I submit this petition on behalf of the good people of Don Valley, and the 56,000 people who have supported an online petition to save Doncaster Sheffield airport from closure. It is an award winner that is central to Doncaster’s future. It has superb facilities, its location could not be better, and it is one of the most environmentally friendly airports at which to land an aircraft; it has a unique approach. The petitioners
“request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take all necessary steps”
to keep our airport open, and to safeguard its future for Doncaster and its people.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Doncaster-Sheffield Airport is incredibly important to the economy and wellbeing of the City of Doncaster, and should not be closed down; further that the owners, Peel Holdings, have indicated their intention to close the airport on the basis that they say it is not commercially viable; notes that the airport provides employment for some 800 people and brings in valuable trade and business to Doncaster; and further that it would be a real setback to the levelling up of our City for the airport to be closed.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take all necessary steps to keep Doncaster-Sheffield airport open and safeguard the employment of all those who work in or around the airport.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002757]
St George’s University Hospitals Trust: Cardiac Surgery Mortality Review
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I thank Mr Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate. I first want to explain why I have brought it forward. St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is not in my constituency, but Professor Marjan Jahangiri, professor of cardiac surgery at St George’s Hospital, is my constituent, hence my involvement today. I am delighted that my constituent is in the Gallery. I reassure you in advance, Mr Deputy Speaker, that while I may refer to coroners’ inquests, I will refer only to those that have concluded; there are several pending, but I will not refer to them, so my remarks will not be on matters sub judice.
I have secured this debate because I believe my constituent may have suffered a serious miscarriage of justice. There are also major public policy issues, if my conclusion is right that the independent mortality review of cardiac surgery at St George’s is deeply flawed. Let me say by way of background that my constituent is a pre-eminent cardiac surgeon and was the first female professor of cardiac surgery appointed in the UK and Europe.
Let me attempt to summarise a very complex situation. The results of cardiac surgery in the UK are reviewed on a three-yearly cycle. St George’s Hospital went into alert for the periods of 2013 to 2016 and 2014 to 2017, due to excess mortality of 11 to 12 patients. I should state that my constituent’s results have never been subject to an alert or an alarm. There were 202 deaths from approximately 5,200 operations at the unit between 2013 and 2018. NHS Improvement commissioned an independent mortality review of the cardiac surgery unit, which is known as the Lewis review.
The Lewis review panel studied the cases and wrote a one-page report on each patient—a structured judgment review. These were based solely on a review of hospital records. Each case received a score of 1 to 6 for problems in care contributing to death. No medical professional was interviewed, and no risk-adjusted mortality was analysed. This methodology is, I understand, very non-standard and runs counter to the methodology of the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research. My constituent highlighted, before publication of the Lewis report, factual errors in the structured judgment reviews, but these letters were ignored.
The review, when it was published, concluded that 67 out of the 202 deaths were avoidable. The figure of 67 is vastly different from the original alert of 11 to 12. As a result of the review, all consultant cardiac surgeons at the unit, including my constituent, were referred to the General Medical Council by NHSI and St George’s. The General Medical Council found “no case to answer”, with no failings in care, and the case was closed.
The 67 cases were referred to Her Majesty’s senior coroner for inner west London, Professor Fiona Wilcox. The coroner has rejected the findings of the Lewis review in all 13 of my constituent’s cases, and no failings in care have been identified. In total, the coroner has rejected the findings in almost 40 cases, and in only one has she concluded that there have been failings in care—a case in which she had already opened an inquest.
I want to give the House a flavour of some of the comments that the coroner has made. I will just choose a few quotations from an inquest on 14 July 2021, which was one of my constituent’s inquests. One quote is:
“I can find no failings of care. I find no criticism of the care delivered by the clinical team. The failings identified in the review have, once again, not been found after consideration of the evidence.”
Another quote from that inquest is:
“I cannot find failings that contributed to the death. On the contrary, I find that the care given by the staff of St George’s was excellent and beyond criticism.”
And another quote from that inquest is:
“There has been enormous damage and suffering as a result of the NHSI Review to the families and St George’s staff, sufferings to relatives who fear that their loved ones died because of lack of care or failures in care, and extraordinary amount of work for this Court.”
On 9 May 2022, the coroner issued a regulation 28 report under the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013, in which she described the failings of the NHSI Lewis review and stated that its implementation has caused deaths and harm. I want to quote just a few quotations from that regulation 28 review. It said that
“when the operative mortality statistics of each of the surgeons is examined across the range of theatres where they work, no surgeon had then or has now an operative mortality rate higher than expected.”
Separately, it said:
“The whole reputation of the cardiac surgery department and the hospital has been damaged with no evidence that this court has so far seen of deficiencies in care.”
Specifically, it was said as a matter of concern that
“the SJR process as deployed in SGH is not fit for purpose, further undermining the public confidence in the NHS, which the public may perceive as the NHS being unable to appropriately audit its own work.”
My constituent finds herself in a position where a review states that her unit caused 67 avoidable deaths, yet she has been exonerated by the coroners’ inquests and the General Medical Council.
This has wide-ranging implications. Not only is my constituent’s medical reputation severely affected, but there are many other consequences. The families of those who died are left confused and troubled as to why their family members died, and it erodes public confidence. As noted in the regulation 28 report, which I mentioned briefly, the restrictions imposed on the unit are limiting its ability to carry out necessary surgeries. The coroner also said that the trust’s cardiac research and training programme had to be disbanded as a result of the review, and surgeons and nurses are losing vital skills. Finally, significant public funds are being spent on the court’s time and legal settlements.
This troubling situation raises significant public policy issues. The situation has been raised in the other place. Lord Kamall said that
“it is also important to recognise the differences between the coroners’ inquests and the work of the independent mortality review, which was not undertaken to determine the cause of death in individual cases or attribute blame”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 May 2022; Vol. 822, c. 451.]
and that it was all about processes, procedures and culture. I would argue, however, that that is not the case.
The Lewis review is specifically called a mortality review, and the terms of reference for the review refer nowhere to a review of processes, procedures or culture. Instead they are focused squarely on whether there are
“problems in care that may have or definitely contributed to the death of a patient.”
Furthermore, the terms of reference explicitly confirm that the review was to consider the same issues as the coroner. I therefore ask the following of my hon. Friend the Minister, although I appreciate that he may want to reflect on this: given the rulings of the coroner and the General Medical Council, I ask that the findings of the NHSI/Lewis review be dropped. This was clearly a review into individual deaths rather than a review of culture, and the findings have been discredited by the coroner. I believe it is firmly in the public interest to drop the conclusions of this review. I further ask that that be done quickly, as it is taking a significant toll on all those involved. I would be most grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister gave this issue his full and due consideration.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (James Morris)
It is a pleasure to be here in my new role as Parliamentary Under-Secretary responsible for primary care and patient safety, and I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) and congratulating her on securing this important debate on cardiac services at St George’s Hospital. Before responding to the specific issues that she raised, I wish to extend my sympathies to the bereaved families she mentioned who have been affected by these issues.
It might be useful if I begin by setting out some of the background and history of cardiac services at St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. It is important to consider the mortality review in the context of the growing concerns that there were about the culture that existed across cardiac services at St George’s, and the impact that context may have had on the safety and quality of services and questions over mortality rates. Indeed, a number of reviews of cardiac services at St George’s and a Care Quality Commission inspection were critical of services, and concerns were raised by a large group of cardiologists from the hospital. Following two mortality alerts from the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research, NHS Improvement commissioned an independent external mortality review, which my hon. Friend mentioned. The purpose of the mortality review was to verify that the trust had identified and addressed the concerns raised through both NICOR alerts, and to inform the trust’s discussions with the coroner regarding the deaths.
It goes without saying that the review’s aims and methodology differed significantly from those of an inquest. The independent panel for the review was composed of consultant cardiac surgeons, cardiologists and consultant cardiac anaesthetists drawn from across the country. It was chaired by Mr Mike Lewis, and published its report in March 2020. The panel found shortcomings in 102 of the 202 deaths it examined. In particular, it found that problems in care probably, most likely or definitely contributed to the deaths of 67 heart surgery patients. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the structured judgment reviews are a standard way of assessing deaths. There is always learning following such a level of scrutiny of a service, including for the regulators. However, I would argue that it would not have been acceptable for NHSI to have ignored the professional and public concerns that gave rise to the mortality review in the first place. The trust and NHS Improvement jointly referred 67 heart surgery patients identified by the review to the coroner. The coroner decided to hold inquests into those cases, which are ongoing. NHS England received a prevention of future deaths report, dated 9 May 2022, to which my hon. Friend referred.
My hon. Friend has raised serious concerns about the findings of the coroner in relation to the mortality review of cardiac services at St George’s, the subsequent impact on the services available to people in south-west London, and the impact of regulatory action on the professionals involved. I have set out the background to the mortality review and what it found. Since the independent mortality review, St George’s has taken comprehensive action to improve the quality, leadership and culture in the cardiac unit. Importantly, mortality has returned to normal levels, patient care outcomes have improved, and the Care Quality Commission has found that services are safe. The review greatly assisted the trust by making recommendations that helped to improve the service and deliver better outcomes for patients.
NHS England London region is continuing to work with the trust to improve the services and leadership of the cardiac unit. The restrictions that were placed on the cardiac surgery unit’s practice before the mortality review have now been removed, and the unit’s outcomes are now in line with those of other trusts. Enhanced oversight of the unit continues, with a package of support measures in place to ensure that improvements are made.
As my hon. Friend said, on 7 May 2022, the GMC found that the two doctors excluded by the trust had “no case to answer”. It is important to emphasise that the referral of those doctors was not as a result of the mortality review, which considered issues of safety and did not criticise any individual. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual cases in relation to that matter because of ongoing legal issues. Finally, NHS England is committed to reviewing the coroner’s prevention of future deaths report of 9 May and will response in due course.
NHS hospitals are working hard to provide the very best care for their patients and families, and they should always seek to learn and take action when they have concerns. The Government are absolutely committed to improving the standard of investigations into serious patient safety incidents in the NHS to create a culture of learning from mistakes and to improve patient safety.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I would like to say that, in view of the heat, hon. Members may wish to remove their jackets.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Mr Marcus Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2022.
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray. Laid before Parliament on 7 June, the regulations are part of the implementation of the leaseholder protection provisions in the Building Safety Act 2022, using powers in part 5 of and schedule 8 to the Act. I will start, if I may, by providing some context and background to these important regulations. As hon. Members will know, before the Government introduced the leaseholder protections via the Building Safety Act, many leaseholders found themselves liable for unlimited costs for remedying historical safety defects in their buildings—costs that they could not afford for problems that were not their fault. But since the provisions came into force at the end of last month, most leaseholders in England are no longer liable to meet those costs.
To be specific, leaseholders in buildings that are 11 metres or more than five storeys high, where the building owner or landlord is the developer or is connected to the developer, are now fully protected from paying for historical safety remediation. However, where that is not the case, qualifying leaseholders will still be protected from all cladding remediation costs and any costs for non-cladding remediation or interim measures, including waking watches; those costs will be firmly capped. In some cases, qualifying leaseholders will also be protected from all historical remediation costs and those protections will pass on to subsequent buyers.
Without the provision made by these regulations, leaseholders would not be able to demonstrate that their lease qualified for the protections; nor would building owners be able to apportion liability for remediation costs between themselves and other landlords. The regulations set out the essential detail needed to implement the Building Safety Act’s provisions and make sure that leaseholders are protected under law. They do not do anything to weaken the leaseholder protections that Parliament agreed in April.
These regulations can be considered in three parts. First, the regulations set out the information that leaseholders must provide to benefit from the protections: their qualifying lease status, their property’s last sale price and their shared ownership status. In line with schedule 8 to the 2022 Act, the regulations provide a form of certificate, which the leaseholder must complete—once per flat. The certificate and evidence requirements are intended to be as simple as possible for leaseholders, while also being robust enough to prevent fraud and assure landlords and lenders of the lease’s qualifying status.
There are two trigger points at which the landlord must notify the leaseholder of the need to complete the certificate: when a defect is found, or the leasehold property is being sold. But leaseholders can submit a completed certificate voluntarily as soon as they have collected the information required. These provisions enable leaseholders to demonstrate that they qualify for protections under the Act and therefore to understand what their maximum cap should be. We will be making available, on the gov.uk website, both guidance and an easy-to-use online tool to help leaseholders and landlords to understand how the system works.
Secondly, the regulations make provision to enable the landlord to identify who is liable to pay for remediation of historical safety defects and how much they will be liable for, and to recover those amounts. The regulations set out formulas that the landlord must use to apportion liability where more than one landlord is connected to the developer, or where full remediation costs are not recoverable from leaseholders. The effect is that in such cases the landlord may recover some costs from other landlords, enabling them to spread the cost of remediating historical safety defects fairly and equitably between those with an interest in the building.
Finally, the regulations set out further detail on the first tier tribunal process in respect of remediation orders. As the Committee will know, the tribunal settles leaseholder disputes in the private rented sector. A remediation order will be an order of the tribunal that requires a landlord to remedy particular defects in a building by a specified time. The regulations make clear the information that a person needs to provide as part of the application to the first tier tribunal for a remediation order. Applicants—who can be anyone connected with the building—along with enforcement bodies, such as the new Building Safety Regulator or a fire and rescue authority, will need to state under which provision the application is made, as well as the building, its landlord and the relevant defect. The first tier tribunal will then be able to determine whether to make an order to require the landlord to remediate the building.
The regulations are a key step towards delivering the leaseholder protections set out in the Building Safety Act. They serve a very specific purpose in providing the detail needed to give full effect to the leaseholder protection provisions in that Act. That in turn will enable buildings to be remediated without requiring leaseholders to pay large amounts of money, so that they benefit fully from the protections that Parliament agreed and that came into force at the end of last month. I hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction of the regulations. I hope that the Committee will allow me to ask a few questions on behalf of constituents of mine who are directly affected by the provisions in the Building Safety Act. Although I welcome those provisions—they represent a big step forward in protecting my constituents—I have real concerns about the detail of their implementation. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure my constituents.
First, I have spoken on a number of occasions about landlords who are linked to the original developer. A network of companies can exist with common directors and shareholders, and such companies can move in and out of liquidation, passing freeholds among themselves in a sort of merry-go-round of ownership. There is no doubt in my mind of the connection between those landlords—some of which have, of course, gone into liquidation and no longer exist—and the original developer, so it would be useful if the Minister explained what he means by “linked”. If a link between landlords and the original developer is clearly there but cannot be shown, how might the costs be apportioned between them?
Secondly, in the case of landlords that have gone into liquidation and disappeared, the directors and shareholders of which are still known because they have moved into other companies that are now the landlords, how effective will it be to apportion the costs among anyone who has ever had a hand in owning or developing substandard buildings?
In cases in which the landlord is the director of, a shareholder in, or is connected to a company that is also a leaseholder, or indeed owns a number of leases in the block—as is the case for Aura Court in my constituency—will that landlord who is also a leaseholder be able to benefit in any way from the regulations? It would be absolutely invidious if a landlord’s costs could be capped simply by virtue of owning some leases in the building, when in fact that landlord directly or indirectly bears responsibility for the condition of the building.
Thirdly, may I ask about management companies? Again, those may be controlled—I fear that, in the building I am thinking of in my constituency, it will be controlled by one of the individuals who is, in my opinion, linked to the original developer and to other landlords.
Finally, I would like to raise the concerns of constituents who feel they have waited many months to see any remediation at all, and still have no real idea of when works might start so that they can get out of this terrible position of having properties that they feel are not safe and which they cannot sell. My constituents would welcome any update from the Minister on what progress is being made on carrying out remediation work.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray.
As the Minister has outlined, sections 116 to 125 of, and schedule 8 to, the Building Safety Act make provision in relation to remediation of certain defects in buildings and, importantly, include protections from liability for leaseholders in specific circumstances. The Minister knows that the Opposition argued trenchantly throughout the passage of the Bill for all blameless leaseholders facing potential costs to fix historical cladding and non-cladding defects to be fully protected irrespective of circumstance. We still firmly believe that that is the only just response to the building safety crisis.
Although they fall short of what we had hoped to secure, the leaseholder protections in the Act are none the less significant. The regulations before us detail how leaseholders will secure those protections. It is therefore essential that they are approved today, and we have no intention of opposing this statutory instrument. However, I must put five questions to the Minister about the regulations, and I hope he will respond in detail—if not in Committee, then in writing to me over the coming days.
The first is a procedural question relating to the date that the Building Safety Act came into force. The Minister will be aware that the main statutory provisions in the regulations came into force with the Act itself on 28 June 2022. However, in practice, those provisions cannot operate until the regulations before us are approved. My question is therefore: why was the Act brought into force on 28 June before the regulations were ready? That is a procedural question, but it is important none the less because this has caused significant confusion among leaseholders living in buildings with extensive historical non-cladding defects, including a great many in my own constituency, who look to the Act as their only means of escaping financial ruin, but who have spent recent weeks in a state of agitation because the leaseholder protection provisions were unusable.
My second question relates to enfranchised buildings. As the Minister knows, during consideration of Lords amendments we pressed the Government to amend the Bill to ensure that the service charge protections set out in schedule 8 applied clearly to enfranchised buildings and buildings where the right to manage has been exercised. The Government refused to accept the amendments, but the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), did commit the Government to a consultation to explore
“how best leaseholders in collectively enfranchised and commonhold buildings and other special cases can be protected from the costs associated with historical building safety defects.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 186.]
My question is simple: where is the promised consultation, and how much longer will leaseholders in such buildings have to wait to learn whether the Government believe that further measures are appropriate to address their plight?
My third question relates to the point in time at which the leaseholder protections that these regulations provide for kick in. It is clear from the guidance that the Department has published that it takes the view that the protections are retrospective and that, as a consequence, any service charge demand for the purpose of paying for the remediation of historical non-cladding defects made but not paid before 28 June is now invalid. However, that is far from the most obvious reading of the Act itself.
The relevant Cabinet Office guidance makes it clear that we cannot implement retrospective law unless the Attorney General and Solicitor General have both approved it. So my question is whether the Department secured the appropriate memoranda from the Law Officers providing for such approval. If not, why is the Department so confident that qualifying leaseholders issued with a service charge demand before 28 June are protected?
My fourth question relates to what advice the Government are giving to leaseholders who face demands for payment right now. The Government are advising leaseholders not to pay invoices relating to relevant historical remediation costs until building owners have fulfilled a series of transparency and financial reporting requirements. Specifically, the guidance issued by the Department makes it clear that landlords can charge qualifying leaseholders only for the cost of fixing historical non-cladding defects if, first, they have sent all leaseholders in the building a formal legal certificate to that effect and, secondly, that they can demonstrate that the costs do not relate to works covered by the Act. Yet as we know—I have live cases of this in my own constituency—landlords and managing agents are making demands for payment without having issued such legal certificates or demonstrated as much.
The guidance implies that any landlord or agent who seeks to enforce a wrongly issued invoice could be committing a criminal offence, but what steps will the Government take to ensure that leaseholders can enforce these rights? In practice, will it be left entirely to leaseholders to challenge the payability of such invoices at the first tier tribunal, with all the barriers that that involves? Or will the Government task the recovery strategy unit with taking up such cases, and if so, how do leaseholders or hon. Members refer individual cases to that unit?
Lastly, I have a question about the robustness of the regulations before us. The Minister will know that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in its recent ninth report of this 2022-23 Session drew the special attention of both Houses to these regulations on the grounds that
“they are defectively drafted in four respects and that there is doubt as to whether they are intra vires in one respect.”
What assurances can the Minister provide that the regulations, which we will shortly approve, are sufficiently watertight to protect leaseholders as the Act intends?
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and other members of the Committee, who in many ways seem content to allow the regulations to pass. I will start by answering some of the questions raised by the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston. The hon. Lady mentioned landlords linked to the developer and the apportionment of costs. The regulations clearly set out a formula for how those costs will be apportioned. In cases where landlords or developers are no longer trading, as I am sure the hon. Member knows, there is a levy scheme where developers pay into that levy, so we can support those people who end up—through no fault of their own—in a situation where the people responsible are not likely to pay for the remediation.
The hon. Lady asked a question about enfranchised buildings and leaseholders, which I will come to when I respond to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. The hon. Lady also mentioned management companies. The type of arrangements she was thinking about were those with non-resident owned management companies that are subject to tripartite leases and arrangements with the landlord and leaseholders. It is important and urgent to prepare these two sets of regulations in the way that we have, so that they enable the protections to take place. We are confident that the way the regulations have been drafted will be effective in ensuring that the qualifying leaseholders gets the right outcome for the type of arrangements the hon. Member has mentioned. We are absolutely clear that all types of management company should be covered by the regulations, and we will closely monitor the progress of cases. If it becomes apparent that changes are necessary, we will come back to Parliament with further proposals.
Kate Green
Perhaps I could write to the Minister to set out the specific circumstances that pertain to my constituency. The regulations were helpfully accompanied by some worked-through examples, so perhaps I could add another one that is being faced by my constituents at the moment and the Minister could respond in detail as to how they would be affected?
Mr Jones
I would very much welcome that correspondence. I would be more than happy to receive the example that the hon. Lady is talking about and to come back to her with a response.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich mentioned that the protections came into force on 28 June, which was two months after the Act received Royal Assent. The regulations, along with the Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (England) Regulations 2022, which were laid on 28 June, will provide the detail to operationalise the new leaseholder protection regime. Landlords are now only able to pass on costs where the Building Safety Act permits them to do so, and that includes pursuing unpaid bills for historical safety remediation issued prior to commencement. As of 28 June, landlords must not pursue bills for historical safety remediation that are not in accordance with the Act. As the hon. Gentleman said, doing so would be illegal and I will come back to him on his point about the operation of that.
Leaseholders should seek to complete the leaseholder deed of certificate that is outlined in the regulations as soon as possible, so they can demonstrate to their landlord whether they qualify for the protections.
In an enfranchised building, the freehold is owned by some or all of the leaseholders. Capping leaseholder liability in a fully enfranchised or commonhold building would not have the effect of reducing or limiting leaseholders’ liability as leaseholders are the freeholder. The other complication is that often not all the leaseholders own part of the freehold, which is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) committed to bringing forward a consultation and a call for evidence on this important issue, which will be released shortly. It is important that we try to help clarify matters for people in that position.
On the report by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Committee will know that the underlying statutory provisions for leaseholder protections were added to what is now the Building Safety Act 2022 about half way through its passage through Parliament, in recognition of the unfair and intolerable position that many leaseholders were in. They faced bills, as has been acknowledged across the House, running into thousands of pounds to fix problems that they had no part in creating. In many senses, as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, those people were put into significant financial distress as a result.
The leaseholder sections were devised and drafted at pace, drawing on expertise in a number of fields, including proposals put forward by Members of both Houses. I record my thanks for their time and engagement on that. The Act received Royal Assent at the end of April and the protections came into force two months later. It was therefore both important and urgent to prepare the two sets of regulations that will enable the protections to take practical effect. The urgency meant that we were not in a position to share the regulations in draft with the Committee, as is the usual practice. That meant, however, that the Committee and its staff had limited time to get to grips with both the regulations and the underlying primary legislation in what is in many ways a groundbreaking piece of law.
None the less, we engaged in two rounds of correspondence with the Joint Committee, culminating in the memorandum and response set out in Appendix 1 to the Committee’s report. Some Members will have read that report in full—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have—and we have seen the detail of the Committee’s concern and the Government’s response.
To summarise, the Joint Committee raised a number of technical and legal issues with the draft instrument in respect of its drafting and of its vires. The Government have considered those issues carefully, including by working closely with the first tier tribunal about the way in which it will deal with appeals. The Government are satisfied that, notwithstanding the Committee’s concerns, there are no issues with the regulations that will prevent the process from operating successfully.
As I have described, the Government consider it imperative that the regulations come into force before the summer recess to alleviate the issues facing leaseholders in defective blocks. We will of course monitor closely the progress of cases. If it becomes apparent that changes are necessary, we will come back to Parliament with proposals. Therefore, as I said before, I ask colleagues to show some forbearance. I am glad that that seems to be the case, but that hon. Members will still feed in their particular cases.
On the final point made by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich on the memorandum from the Law Officers about confirmation of the retrospection on the 28th due date, if he will forgive me, I will take that away and come back to him with a fuller response. On that basis, and given that we have considered the draft regulations, I hope that the Committee will approve them.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Richard Fuller)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2022.
It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. This Government recognise the threat posed to the United Kingdom by economic crime and are determined to do whatever it takes to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. Money laundering can undermine the integrity and stability of our financial markets and institutions. It is a global problem and represents a significant threat to the United Kingdom’s national security. It is a key enabler of serious and organised crime, which costs the UK at least £37 billion every year. Global leadership is vital and must be underpinned by strong action here at home. While our domestic action must be strong, it must also be proportionate in order to minimise the burden on legitimate customers and businesses. Striking that balance is the reason why the Government continue to review and amend the money laundering regulations.
In January 2020, the Government transposed the European Union’s fifth money laundering directive, which provided for the addition of art market participants, letting agents and cryptoasset businesses into the regulated sector, and set out discrepancy reporting requirements to improve the accuracy of the UK’s beneficial ownership registers. Since leaving the European Union, we have had the opportunity to ensure that the money laundering regulations go further in protecting the United Kingdom’s reputation as a safe place to conduct business. We made several changes to the money laundering regulations earlier this year in relation to high-risk countries and trusts, which allowed us to respond to the latest economic crime risks and protect the United Kingdom from overseas illicit finance flows. However, as we all know, there is more work to be done, which is why the Government are making further necessary updates to the money laundering regulations through today’s secondary legislation.
Anti-money laundering regulation must keep pace with the rate of technological change so that no part of our financial system is open to exploitation by criminals. This instrument therefore extends the Financial Action Task Force’s recommendation 16, known as the travel rule, to cryptoasset firms. It will require information on the identity of the originator and beneficiary of a transfer of funds or assets to be sent and recorded by the firms making that transfer. This supports the detection and investigation of money laundering and terrorist financing, as the transfers of cryptoassets will become subject to the same rigorous anti-money laundering requirements as bank transfers. We are also closing a gap in the regulations by requiring proposed acquirers of already registered cryptoasset firms to notify the Financial Conduct Authority ahead of such acquisitions. That will allow the FCA to object to such changes in control before they take place, enabling it to make sure unregistered firms cannot gain access to the United Kingdom.
The instrument also makes several other discrete, targeted changes that are intended to ensure that the regulations are appropriately aligned with updated risk assessments and new international standards. For example, it will ensure that we are aligned with the FATF standards on proliferation financing by introducing a requirement for supervised persons and the private sector to identify and assess risks of potential breaches, non-implementation or evasion of the targeted financial sanctions related to proliferation financing.
The instrument will go further by strengthening and clarifying how the anti-money laundering regime operates and by ensuring that the United Kingdom’s anti-money laundering supervisors have the right powers available to them to respond to new and emerging threats. For example, the instrument will expand the requirements in the regulations to report discrepancies between the information gathered by regulated firms and that held at Companies House, both in the course of ongoing business relationships and for entities in scope of the new register of overseas entities.
To support the objectives of upcoming limited partnership reform and to improve the transparency and integrity of the companies register, the instrument amends the definition of a trust and company service provider—TCSP—to cover the formation of all business arrangements, not just companies, that are required to register at Companies House and to ensure that customer due diligence is conducted for customers of TCSPs.
The instrument makes several technical and clarificatory changes to the regulations to ensure that they are up to date and continue to work in the best way possible. I hope that I have shed light on the main element of this instrument, and I thank hon. Members in advance for their examination of the issues. I hope they will join me in supporting the instrument, and I commend it to the Committee.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ali.
The Opposition are committed to supporting the global effort to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism. The Minister will be pleased to hear that we are broadly supportive of the draft regulations and will vote in favour of them. We welcome, in particular, the new travel rule for cryptoassets and the duty on regulated firms to carry out continuous anti-money laundering checks. I am sure the Minister will agree that many of the measures could have been introduced months ago. We are still waiting for the long overdue second economic crime Bill, so perhaps the Minister will be able to update me on the Government’s progress on that.
I have a number of questions about the draft regulations. As before, I am happy for the Minister to write to me if he does not have the answers to hand. First, on the regulations on cryptoasset firms, I welcome regulation 5, which requires cryptoasset firms to record information on the sender and receiver of cryptoasset transfers. That will introduce much-needed transparency to the sector, but it will not come into effect until September 2023. The Minister will be aware that kleptocrats linked to Russia are rushing to convert their assets into cryptocurrencies to avoid the sanctions put in place in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. What assessment has the Minister made of the risk that the delay in implementing the regulations will allow Kremlin-linked individuals to avoid sanctions?
I also have a question about regulation 10, which removes the obligation to build a bank account portal. Transparency International has warned that that will leave the UK’s anti-money laundering regimes significantly weaker than the EU’s. Spotlight on Corruption believes that a portal would have allowed law enforcement and anti-money laundering supervisors to access information on the identity of holders and beneficial owners of banking payment accounts and safe deposit boxes, therefore supporting criminal investigations and the recovery of the proceeds of crime. Why did the Minister arrive at a different conclusion from the anti-corruption experts, despite the Government not even publicly consulting on regulation 10?
The Minister said that the Government decided not to build a bank account portal because of the potential cost to the public and private sector. Could he set out the estimated costs to the public and private sectors of building the portal? Again, if he does not have the information to hand, I am happy to have it later. Could he explain the method used to determine that the cost outweighs the potential benefits of a portal to our economy and society as a result of increasing the capacity of enforcement agencies to investigate and recover the proceeds of crime?
Let me turn now to the consequences of the draft regulations not applying to the UK’s Crown dependencies —the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place highlighted that this is a potential cause of concern because it risks bad actors in the UK financial services sector moving to the Crown dependencies to avoid anti-money laundering checks. Could the Minister confirm whether he will work with his equivalents in the Crown dependencies to ensure that the changes introduced today are reflected in their regulatory regimes?
Finally, I want to ask the Minister about the relationship of the draft regulations to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 and its long overdue second part. The statutory instrument makes minor changes to the 2022 Act to ensure that discrepancies in company records are reported in a timely manner. That seems sensible enough, but does the Minister accept that it will have little impact if the Government continue to delay the second economic crime Bill and a reform of Companies House? We have been promised the Bill for months, but it is yet to materialise. Can the Minister update us on the timetable for the Bill?
The Minister will be happy to know that the Opposition support the draft regulations, but I hope he can address some of the concerns I have outlined.
Richard Fuller
I thank the hon. Lady for her wise words about the import of the instrument we are considering and for the Opposition’s overall support for it. She asked a series of questions, and I will reply to them directly. If I miss any, she may want to come back on them.
The hon. Lady asked about the timetable and particularly about cryptoasset firm regulations. One reason why that is coming later is that firms require a technological solution, and in order to get robust solutions, we felt it was appropriate to give time. She also asked specifically about a risk from Russian kleptocrats, but I will write back to her on that point because it covers issues beyond the one I have just made. I will also get back to her on regulation 10.
On the bank account portal, the issue is that the UK has several pre-existing capabilities, such as customer information orders. However, the hon. Lady asked a specific question about the assessment of the costs. I will get back to her on that, but I think the issue has to be seen in the context of what is already in place, rather than an assumption that we have to build something from scratch. The hon. Lady also asked about working with our equivalents in the Crown dependencies and about a potential way around the regulations. That is an important point, and I will continue the normal dialogues with my equivalents in the Crown dependencies.
The hon. Lady asked about the issues around the timetable for the economic crime Bill. I am afraid I am not in a position to advise her any further on that today, but I am sure I will be able to as the Bill comes forward. I think I have answered most of the questions. If I missed any, the hon. Lady can advise me subsequently. On those that I have not answered today, we will respond in writing in due course.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. The Minister has probably already answered most of my questions; they have been whittled down to one—much like what is happening in the Tory party at the moment, as it selects a Prime Minister.
I have a brief question to the Minister. As he knows, Parliament was promised a full Companies House reform. There is no doubt that there is a clear need for a full reform of the failing anti-money laundering law. That reform is due to feature in the full economic crime Bill. Like others, that Bill has been delayed and delayed for far too many years. The organisation Spotlight on Corruption works to end corruption in the UK and, importantly, wherever the UK has influence. It has been clear on the need to enable more effective criminal prosecutions of sanctions breaches. It has also noted that there has not been any criminal sanctions enforcement for 12 years. Does the Minister think that statement is accurate? Spotlight on Corruption is also calling for the introduction of an offence either for the failure to prevent sanctions evasion or for conspiracy to commit sanctions evasion. Both are worthy of consideration. Like the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, and many others, I would like to know the timetable for introducing this Bill.
Richard Fuller
The SNP spokesperson makes interesting points, some of which echo those made by the Opposition spokesperson. On the timetable, I will get back to him. He asked about the merits of two additional offences—failure to prevent sanctions evasion and conspiracy to commit sanctions evasion. I have no comment on that, but I would be interested in anything the hon. Gentleman has to send to me to look at.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a full Companies House reform, and he expressed some of the frustration that hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed. He will be aware that the Treasury has provided Companies House with £60 million, I think, to begin those reforms, but he is right to draw the Committee’s attention to the issue and to hope that further reforms will be forthcoming. Some of those reforms feature in these regulations—for example, the further tightening of some of the restrictions, particularly around TCSPs.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No.2) Regulations 2022.
The regulations, if the Committee approves them, will be made under the powers conferred by the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021. They take the opportunity of our departure from the European Union to create a more flexible set of powers that will be available to Ministers when implementing slot alleviation measures. We are now able to take the approach that is best able to support our own circumstances.
To explain the circumstances behind the regulations, we have all seen the disruption that holidaymakers and other passengers have faced at some of the UK’s airports, particularly over the recent Easter and half-term breaks. There have been unacceptable queues, delays, and short-notice cancellations of flights. The persistent impact of the covid-19 pandemic has presented challenges for the aviation sector as it recovers, and that sector has faced difficulties in ramping up operations to meet the high levels of demand.
Airlines, airports, and the myriad businesses that support aviation operations have struggled to recruit and train enough staff. Many other airports around the world have struggled in a similar way with similar challenges, and those challenges—combined with air traffic control restrictions in place over Europe, with airspace closures and strike action in European air traffic control—have resulted in short-notice cancellations of flights and considerable disruption for passengers.
The Government are doing everything in their power to support the aviation industry and ensure that passengers can fly with confidence over the summer. For example, on 30 June the Government set out a 22-point plan to support the aviation industry in avoiding further disruption over the summer peak period. One of the key elements of that package is the slot amnesty, which offers carriers more flexibility to plan and deliver reliable schedules. The slot amnesty introduces a one-off change to slots policy for the remainder of the summer 2022 season.
Critical to that amnesty will be the sector itself ensuring that it can develop robust schedules that it is confident it can deliver. Ordinarily, airlines must operate slots 80% of the time in order to retain the right to the same slots the following year at slot-constrained airports—the 80:20 rule or, as it is often called, the “use it or lose it” rule. When the pandemic initially struck, that 80:20 rule was fully waived to avoid environmentally damaging ghost flights and financially costly flights with few or no passengers. Following the UK’s departure from the EU, the Government introduced new temporary powers through the ATMUA Act to provide a more tailored alleviation of slots rules in response to the ongoing impact of the pandemic on demand.
For summer 2022, the Government’s focus was on encouraging recovery following the success of the vaccine roll-out, the removal of travel restrictions, and the positive demand outlook. After consulting with industry and considering the evidence, the Government determined that 70:30—a reduction from 80:20—was an appropriate usage requirement, with an extended, justified non-use provision that exempts carriers from the rules if they are operating in markets where restrictions are still in place. However, in light of the recent severe disruption at UK airports caused by the persistent impact of covid, we consider that further alleviation measures are justified for the summer 2022 season, which runs until 29 October 2022. As required by the ATMUA Act, we have also determined that there is a continued reduction in demand, which is likely to persist.
Therefore, on 21 June, we published today’s statutory instrument, which sets out our plan to offer carriers a two-week window during which they can hand back up to 30% of their remaining slots for summer 2022. The measure is critical, because it enables airlines to take stock of what they expect to be realistically deliverable over the summer and plan accordingly without having to worry about losing their historical rights to their slots. In other words, they can look at their schedule and understand what they have the capacity and resource to fly, and if they do not have that capacity or resource, we have given them the ability to hand back slots without worrying about what will happen to them in the following year, because those slots are valuable commodities. The proposal was developed following a short consultation with airports and airlines, and consideration of their responses. There was strong support for the proposal, with the great majority of airlines and airports supporting it.
The draft instrument applies to England, Scotland and Wales. Aerodromes are a devolved matter in Northern Ireland and, as there are currently no slot-constrained airports in Northern Ireland, the Executive agreed that it was not necessary for the powers in the Act to extend or apply to Northern Ireland.
On the content of the draft SI, the regulations aim to minimise disruption at airports, to give more certainty for airline operations and to improve outcomes for passengers. By offering carriers the opportunity to return slots that they cannot operate, the aviation sector should be better able to plan ahead and to deliver a realistic summer schedule that minimises disruption at airports.
We have allowed carriers to return up to a maximum of 30% of the slots they hold for the rest of the season, from 9 July to 29 October. That applies only to slots that would be flown at least 14 days after they have been handed back, to protect consumers from short-notice cancellations and to give them time to make alternative plans.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the rationale, but will he clarify why the Government rejected the recommendations of the Transport Committee in our aviation report in respect of the reallocation of slots? Is it because of recent events—the queues and so on—at the airports?
Robert Courts
If I have understood the hon. Gentleman’s point correctly and I am correctly remembering the recommendation in the report—I am happy to take another intervention if I have misunderstood—he referred to “reallocation”. However, it is of course the case that the allocation of slots is a matter for Airport Co-ordination Ltd, the independent slots co-ordinator. That is not something that Government get involved in. The Government set the overall slot policy and we have ability under the ATMUA Act to amend the ratio in the “use it or lose it” rule, but we do not have the ability to allocate slots to particular airlines; that is a matter for ACL, which is independent of Government. I hope I understood his point correctly.
The draft measure applies to slots allocated to the summer 2022 scheduling period, which the air carrier also had the right to use during the summer 2021 scheduling period—in other words, the previous period—including leased or remedy slots awarded following competition law complaints in the past. It does not apply to slots that were newly allocated to a carrier for the summer 2022 season. It will also not apply to those slots held by carriers that have publicly announced on or after 25 June that they have permanently ceased operations at an airport, or will cease to do so before the start of the next season—for self-evident reasons. Slots that are not handed back will continue to be subject to the previous summer 2022 regulations and the requirement to fly at least 70% of those slots.
In summary, the measure is a one-off amnesty. It covers slots held for the summer 2022 season to prevent the disruption that we have recently seen at airports continuing into the summer peak. Now the window has closed, the aviation sector has a responsibility to deliver its schedules and to keep last-minute cancellations and delays to an absolute minimum. For the future, we are currently considering alleviation for winter 2022, and we plan to announce our policy for that season shortly.
The draft instrument provides necessary relief for the aviation sector for summer 2022 to reduce further disruption in the sector’s busiest period and to give passengers certainty around their holiday plans. In essence, we expect airlines, if they are offering tickets for sale, to be able to operate them. We expect them to be able to plan realistically for the summer season. The SI gives them the ability to return slots for next year so that they can plan ahead without having to have the concern in their mind about next year’s slots. This is a major step by the Government to reduce disruption, and I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, particularly today, because it is the 150th anniversary of the Ballot Act 1872 which, apropos of nothing, allowed the right to cast one’s vote in secret. To poke a little fun at the Conservative Members, praise the Lord for that today!
Mike Kane
Just a little, but it is interesting all the same.
Here we are discussing slot allocations once again. The Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 was supposed to capitalise on a Brexit dividend and enable us to be more flexible to support the aviation industry. The Minister said that its aims were to minimise disruption at airports during their busiest period, but as shadow Minister for maritime as well as for aviation, I can tell the Minister that that ship has sailed for most of our travelling public in the light of the chaos that we have seen.
The aviation industry was more affected than any other by the covid-19 pandemic, and it was right that we reviewed the allocation of slots, which the Labour party supported, to prevent environmentally damaging ghost flights. Despite the pandemic being over two years old, however, the Government are still tinkering around the edges well into the summer season. This summer season can be described only as chaotic for travellers and workers alike. The shame of the situation is that it was entirely predictable and, had the Government heeded our repeated calls for a sector-specific deal, it could have been avoided or minimised.
On 30 June, the Government published a 22-point plan, as the Minister said. Its stated aims were to enable the aviation industry to avoid further disruption so that travellers could get away over the summer period. The slot amnesty—whereby operators could hand back 30% of their allocated slots to stop last-minute cancellations and customer delays—is one component of the package, although I note that the deadline for the amnesty closed nine days ago, on 9 July.
We are already well into the summer of 2022—most schools have already broken up. The plan has not been a resounding success so far, to put it mildly. Had there been a specific package, the industry could have planned for the numbers it needed and the flights it had sold. Instead, Heathrow has had to restrict the number of flights, Gatwick has had to restrict the number of movements on its apron, and airlines are cancelling tens of thousands of flights this summer.
Previous industry consultations on this matter determined that the 70:30 ratio was an appropriate usage requirement for the summer period, and it has now been extended until 29 October, as the Minister said, but I must ask: how did we get to the point where families at the departure gate are being told by police officers that their long-awaited holiday has been cancelled? How can that happen in a country that was once internationally renowned for our great aviation sector?
I welcome the two-week clause in the SI that means that airlines can hand back only a slot that is more than 14 days in the future. I hope that that will mean that last-minute cancellations are avoided. I am sure that all members of the Committee agree that families going through security and waiting at the gate only to suffer last-minute cancellations is completely unacceptable, whatever the reason. However, detail is light on what will happen to people who are booked on a flight that is cancelled. What compensation will be available to them? One might argue that the measures are too little, too late. For many people who have to reschedule their holiday having looked forward to it, a two-week cancellation notice might be a bitter pill to swallow.
The chief executive of Menzies Aviation, which provides services such as check-in and baggage handling, has laid the blame for the chaos firmly at the door of the Secretary of State for Transport, who is—as I have said before—missing in action. I would like to think he has been dealing with the issue, but in every aspect of transport—buses, rail, the road system and so on— [Interruption.] I know that I am straying slightly, Mr Gray.
Mike Kane
I will get back to the points that the Minister raised. The plan that was published on 30 June contains eight points relating to staff recruitment. We are past the mid-point of July. Surely anything contained within that plan—which is, as always, light on detail—is already too late for our summer season—[Interruption.] I am referring to the 22-point plan that the Minister mentioned, Mr Gray.
Mike Kane
As we are already into the summer season, airlines’ ability to fill vacant slots has likely passed. That capacity might have had a real impact on our regions—on the tourist trade up and down this great land—for the summer season. We do not oppose the statutory instrument, but I urge the Government to be more strategic in their operations and actions in order to address the ongoing chaos in this sector.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
As always, Mr Gray, it is a pleasure to hear your Glaswegian tones from the Chair. I state at the outset that the Scottish National party will also not be opposing the SI—the Government have been left with very little choice over introducing it. I agree with probably every word the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, said and I will not repeat them—partly due to the heat in this room—but I do have a couple of points to make and a couple of questions for the Minister.
If my experience in recent weeks is anything to go by, I am not sure how many ghost flights there are at the moment in the UK, so packed and chaotic are some flights. However, ghost flights are obviously an absurd waste of money and emit completely unnecessary carbon and greenhouse gases. There were 500 such flights between October and December last year, but Lufthansa has had to fly 15,000 ghost flights despite the threshold for slot alleviation in Europe being cut to 50%—it has now been put back up to 64%.
As the Minister himself alluded to, however, the reason we are discussing this issue again is jobs. The sector is struggling to recruit and retain staff. Obviously, if the Government had supported the industry as promised, the problem would not be anywhere near as acute, but we have had that argument before. Today, we are providing relief to a sector that is struggling to get staff and therefore, crucially, capacity back into its operations.
I am grateful to the Minister for his response this morning to a letter I sent regarding various aviation issues, including jobs. I am not going to stray too far, but—
Gavin Newlands
If one of those issues had been taken forward, we might not have needed to be here today, but they were not. Those issues included the recruitment processes and the hope for access to recruitment services in aviation—
The Chair
Order. I am trying to be as flexible as I can, and I was flexible with the Opposition spokesman, but I am afraid that the Minister’s reply to an earlier letter has nothing to do with this statutory instrument. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would return to the instrument.
The Chair
Order. You will not have two sentences, or even one sentence, or one word. As I have said, you will not return to that matter; you will return to the statutory instrument we are discussing. The other thing you will not do is argue with the Chair.
Gavin Newlands
I will not argue with the Chair. I was saying that I had two sentences—all I was saying was that I was nearly finished.
Gavin Newlands
I will ask the Minister about the issue afterwards.
I have spoken before about the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service. In terms of slot alleviation, clearly cancellations are happening, and for one airline more than most—Loganair, because of some of the airports it flies into. Are cancellations that are happening as a result of our lack of membership of EGNOS part of the current review, or are they left out?
Also, given that the recruitment issues are likely to be medium to long term—perhaps up to 18 months or longer—does the Minister envision extending relief again when we come to the winter? I think he said he was going to publish something on that issue. I have heard from the Airport Operators Association and others that forward bookings for the winter are not looking particularly promising right now.
At the moment, European carriers are not getting the same relief from the UK at the other end of routes, so what discussions is the Minister having with his European partners to make sure ghost flights do not take place? I accept that he is not responsible for legislation in other European countries, but what conversations are happening on that topic?
Finally, there has at times been inflexibility in this area. What do the rules say, or what does the Minister think, about very specific covid outbreaks that affect airlines in certain situations, rather than national outbreaks, where the Government can obviously ask the aviation sector to change?
Robert Courts
I thank the hon. Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for the detailed and thoughtful consideration that they have given the matter.
I will deal first with the matters raised by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. I stress that the most important thing about the whole SI, which is pertinent to the points that he and others have raised, is that the aviation sector is privately owned, privately operated and privately run. It is for the aviation sector to ascertain whether it has the people and resources in place to operate the schedule that it is offering for sale. The Government can support it, but we cannot do those things for it—those are a matter for the aviation sector, and it alone. That is the most important thing to remember when we consider summer resilience and many of the hon. Gentleman’s points.
It is also important to remember that this problem is not unique to the UK. We are seeing the same problems at Schiphol in Holland for the same reasons—a shortage of staff in the relevant locations. We are also seeing similar scenes in Ireland, France, Germany and the United States. Across the whole of Europe, the European Union and countries elsewhere, there are similar problems, which are fundamentally caused by the dislocation that we have seen because of covid. It is critical to remember that whatever approach a Government took to the pandemic, similar problems are being seen. We should not fall into the myopic trap of thinking that it is a purely UK problem; it is not.
The hon. Gentleman talked about sector-specific support, and he and I have had this debate many times before. I remind the Committee that the Government gave the sector approximately £8 billion of support, particularly for furlough, which is a significant amount of money. We also had the airport and ground operations support scheme, which was a specific grant, and the aviation skills retention platform, which is directly relevant to the purpose that we are discussing—people.
The Chair
Order. I was rude to both other hon. Members, so I will be fair and instruct the Minister to stick to the SI.
Robert Courts
I am justly chastised for straying in my attempt to be diligent. I will go back to the context of the SI.
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East made a number of points about cancellations, with which I entirely agree. Last-minute cancellations are distressing for families and for people who have been waiting to reunite with friends, and we should do everything possible to avoid them, as the Government are doing through the 22-point plan. A number of cancellations have recently been reported in the papers, some of which are in response to the sector being realistic. We have to be fair to the sector about that; when we say, “Look at your schedules and be realistic. Are you able to operate the schedules that you are offering for sale?”, and it realises it cannot, it will obviously have to take steps. No cancellation is good news—I do not want there to be any cancellations; I want everybody to fly as swiftly and easily as possible—but if there is a cancellation, I do not want it to be at the last moment. If it happens earlier, it is regrettable, but it gives people a chance to make alternative plans. We are encouraging the sector to be responsible, to look at what it can operate and to take steps accordingly.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about compensation. We published a charter at the weekend so that consumers can clearly see all their rights in one place. I think I have dealt with all his points, but I firmly reject any suggestion that the Government or the Transport Secretary are missing in action on this. We have taken enormous steps, through a detailed programme of very regulator engagement with the industry, to understand exactly how we may best be of assistance. What hon. Members are seeing here is the fruits of that engagement, which is precisely why we are debating this issue today.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North raised a couple of points. He asked about the impact of EGNOS. We continue to gather evidence on that and to look at the impact it is having. He asked whether any flights that are cancelled because of an EGNOS-related factor are taken into account in these regulations. That would obviously depend on whether the cancellation was at a slot-constrained airport, so he will be referring to whether that is at this end. Without getting into wider points about slots, it will depend on this statutory instrument, which is all about handing back slots in the two-week window. An EGNOS-related problem would occur on the day, so one would not expect an EGNOS-related cancellation to be covered, at least not sticking strictly to the confines of this statutory instrument. However, under normal circumstances the ratio is 70:30 or 80:20, so there is a percentage there to allow for slots not being flown for another reason, whatever that might be, and that might include EGNOS.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the position we are taking for winter. We have consulted on the wider slots policy and we are considering our position, and it is likely that our policy will be announced shortly. I cannot go into that any further at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to this specific relief, it is a one-off measure taken in response to the scenes we have seen in relation to resilience as we come up to the summer peak period and in relation to constrained demand because of the covid pandemic.
If I understood him correctly, the hon. Gentleman also asked about conversations we are having with European partners and whether there are covid restrictions in other countries.
Gavin Newlands
Essentially, alleviation at the moment is 64%, but our European partners look at the rules perhaps slightly differently. The reasons for the flight not taking place are allowed at the UK end but not recognised at the European end. Therefore, the flight has to take place because the Europeans have slightly different regulations.
Robert Courts
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Of course, a slot at one end may be alleviated but that does not mean that there is an alleviation at the other end. This is an operational matter that has to be negotiated between airlines and their partners on the other side. What he said earlier is quite right, in that the Government do not have any control over the steps that others take. However, we have an ongoing relationship with other countries through officials, and Ministers where appropriate, to discuss these matters with partners abroad and with our airline sector. This is one of the issues that I would expect to be covered.
I thank the hon. Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for their points, which I think I have covered. In essence, these regulations seek to minimise the issues around capacity and short-notice cancellation. The Government are taking a strong and bold step to assist the industry in making sure we have a realistic schedule, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) Order 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we start, in view of the weather, Members are advised that they can take their jackets and ties off if they wish.
The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) Order 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. This year, we have witnessed an extraordinary and global increase in the cost of energy. The Government recognise that millions of households across the UK need further support with the cost of living this year, which is why we announced additional support worth over £37 billion, including targeted help for those on the lowest incomes.
In that context, the energy company obligation, or ECO, scheme remains key to tackling fuel poverty and helping low-income households with their energy bills. In the sustainable warmth strategy 2021, the Government committed to extending, expanding and reforming the scheme in line with our statutory fuel poverty target. Since 2013, the ECO scheme has ensured much-needed support for low-income households to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. Over the last decade, since it began, it has delivered over 3.5 million energy efficiency and heating measures to around 2.4 million households.
The draft order provides for that expanded and reformed energy company obligation scheme in Great Britain until March 2026, and therefore succeeds the previous energy company obligation order in Great Britain. Its main provisions are, first, the scheme’s extension by four years, to 2026, and expansion from around £640 million to around £1 billion per annum. Secondly, there is an increased focus on support for low income and vulnerable households in the least efficient homes. Thirdly, mandatory minimum energy efficiency improvements will be required. Under the scheme, those in energy performance certificate bands F and G—the least energy efficient homes—will be improved to a minimum band D. B and D and E homes, in turn, will be improved to a minimum band C.
Fourthly, the introduction of a new minimum requirement will see at least 150,000 energy performance certificate band E, F and G private-tenure homes upgraded. Fifthly, the solid wall minimum requirement will ensure that solid wall insulation is installed in at least 90,000 homes. The draft order introduces minimum insulation requirements for all homes receiving any heating measure, subject to certain exceptions, to encourage a fabric-first approach. Broken boiler replacements will continue to be limited but available under the scheme, capped at 20,000 homes, to encourage the transition to renewable heating and align with the Government’s long-term plan for reaching net zero.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I understand what the Minister says about capping the number of gas boiler replacements, which will transition us away from reliance on fossil fuels, but what happens if that cap is reached? How will costs and alternative solutions be managed for other customers who have broken-down gas boiler systems?
Greg Hands
If I understood the hon. Gentleman’s question correctly, it is about dealing with people who have no choice but to have a new gas boiler, and what the cost of that might be. We recognise that some homes will not be suitable to be upgraded to something like a heat pump. That is one of the reasons that we are putting these measures in place: to ensure that funds are available to help those who need a boiler upgrade. However, we are saying that ensuring that that is available is not the priority of the Government going forward. The priority is to align with our net zero requirements and make sure that people can be upgraded to heat pumps wherever possible.
Alan Brown
What is to prevent companies taking the easy option of the gas boiler replacement to get up to the 20,000 threshold? I am trying to see what checks and measures are in place to make sure that gas boilers are installed only when they are really required and other options have been exhausted.
Greg Hands
It would be a matter for the supplier to make sure that the energy efficiency upgrade is carried out in accordance with the scheme and Government policy. It will ultimately be a matter for the supplier under the ECO4 regulations. The Government will of course speak with suppliers to ensure that they are delivering according to the Government requirements. What we are saying is that we are not encouraging gas boiler upgrades, but that if there is no other available source of heat and a consumer is vulnerable, there should be the possibility of upgrading the gas boiler.
The scheme’s eligibility criteria are reformed, placing greater focus on households on the lowest incomes. Households in receipt of means-tested benefits will continue to be eligible. The proportion of a supplier’s obligation that can be delivered under the flexible eligibility element of the scheme will increase to 50%. Under that, multiple options are introduced to encourage improved targeting of low-income and vulnerable households that may not be in receipt of benefits. Those flexible eligibility provisions will enable local authorities, energy suppliers, Citizens Advice and the NHS to work together to identify households vulnerable to the effects of living in a cold home.
A new scoring framework will apply to incentivise multiple measure delivery, along with a series of score uplifts to steer measures and delivery where they are needed most. Installation quality will be governed under the Government-endorsed TrustMark compliance and certification framework. As part of that, the quality of installations, alongside a whole assessment of the property, will continue to rely on independent industry standards, the publicly available specifications PAS 2030 and PAS 2035.
The impacts will be as follows. Thanks to the reforms, we estimate that some 800,000 measures will be installed in around 450,000 homes. Of those 450,000 homes, around 360,000 will be upgraded to EPC bands B and C, removing those households from fuel poverty. We will continue the Government’s excellent record of improving the energy efficiency of people’s homes. The percentage of homes in Great Britain in energy efficiency bands A to C has risen under this Government from 10% to 46% of the total housing stock. That is a quadrupling of the number of homes in the most energy-efficient categories.
Those measures are expected to save £300 on average over the lifetime of the measures and up to £1,600 for those living in the least energy-efficient homes. However, those savings could average around £600 next winter, given future prices—or prices according to the futures market, I should say. That will provide crucial, long-term help when it is needed most this coming winter. To help deal with what might seem to be a gap between the ECO schemes—between the end of the ECO3 at the end of March this year and the start of the ECO4—the order permits measures installed since 1 April to count toward the suppliers’ obligation target.
Those measures are split into two elements. First, there is interim delivery for measures installed between 1 April and 30 June—so over the last three months—to slightly amended ECO3 rules. Secondly, there is early delivery for measures installed to the new rules. Nearly 33,000 measures have already been installed since 1 April. The fact that there might appear to be an interregnum between the ECO3 and ECO4 schemes is no cause for concern. The 33,000 measures have been introduced in those three months will be accounted for either in the ECO3 scheme for the interim delivery or early delivery under ECO4 in that seamless process.
The Government held a consultation on the reforms last summer and published a response in April. The majority of consultation responses supported extending and expanding the scheme as well as the proposals for reform. Government are proceeding with the main proposals, with some key changes in the light of the response received and the final impact assessment. One change is that we have increased the minimum requirement for bands E, F and G from 100,000 to 150,000 private tenure homes.
More of the least energy-efficient properties must be upgraded, focusing more help on those with the highest energy bills. We are providing extra incentives for the installation of measures in rural off gas grid areas in Scotland and Wales, which will be of particular interest to Members representing rural parts of Scotland and Wales. Wales has the largest percentage of homes off the gas grid, and that is the subject of frequent questions to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy from my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) and for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams). They are specific measures in place to help rural homes that are off the gas grid in Scotland and Wales.
England has the separate home upgrade grant, so is covered by an existing scheme. That will account for the extra costs of delivery.
Greg Hands
I know that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, on behalf of every person in rural Scotland, is about to stand up and welcome the extension for rural homes off the gas grid in Scotland.
Alan Brown
I welcome the uplift and the recognition that Scotland and Wales have more homes off the gas grid. How does that impact on the overall budget allocated to Scotland and Wales? By their very nature, they have a greater need, which is recognised. Has the overall budget envelope increased for Scotland and Wales, or is it still done on a per capita basis?
Greg Hands
The scheme is Great Britain-wide. One of the key responses from the consultation was to ensure that, wherever possible, the rules across Great Britain are made the same. Exceptionally, Northern Ireland has its own electricity market. On the extra incentives for the installation of measures in rural areas off the gas grid, I will find out for the hon. Gentleman if there is a specific budget allocation—[Interruption.] There is no specific budget allocation set per nation. He will see that the policy is designed to help. We recognise that rural Scotland and Wales are off the gas grid and not eligible for the home upgrade grant—there ought to be devolved equivalents in Scotland and Wales for that. That is why we have taken the action that we have.
The repair of efficient or inefficient oil and liquefied petroleum gas heating systems will be allowed as a last resort in homes that are off gas grid and where it is not possible to install low-carbon heating measures. That will help to ensure that people are not left without a functioning heating system.
The energy company obligation scheme remains important to support low income and vulnerable households to improve the energy efficiency of their homes and help reduce the energy bills of an estimated 450,000 households. The Government can take great pride that we are providing real help and energy efficiency measures for low-income and vulnerable households, as we have for the last nine years and will for the next four. The order extends and expands the scheme, focusing on the lowest-income households living in the least energy efficient homes. The scheme remains a key contributor to meeting our fuel poverty and carbon reduction goals and is consistent with the heat and buildings strategy and the transition to net zero. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. The first thing to say in response to the Minister’s excellent setting out of the provisions of ECO4 is that it is a good scheme. We welcome a number of elements of it, which expand and in many instances are different from ECO3. Above all, we welcome the fact that it is finally on the table today. I see that the order will apply from tomorrow, so it will finally be in place, and I will come back to that problem in a moment.
We certainly welcome the fact that ECO4 sets out increased collaboration with local authorities and other social housing providers, and the increased flex to 50%, which is a slow but sure move towards recognising that local authorities can play a central role in energy efficiency, retrofit and upgrade in properties. That will enable a lot more collaboration on the private sector between local authorities, social housing providers and ECO providers.
We certainly welcome the proposal to ensure that the most poorly rated homes—those in E, F and G—are now among the priorities for treatment, and we welcome the fact that putting them up two bands is on the table in ECO4. We welcome the increased budget from £640 million for ECO3 to £1 billion for ECO4. I have to say, however, that as welcome as that increase is, two aspects ought at least to give Members pause. The main one is that the budget increase will effectively be borne by bill payers, as we see clearly from the impact assessment. If I read it in its entirety, it sounds a bit strange. It says:
“The impacts of the policy shown above are not expected to be shared equally across society, with obligated suppliers expected to incur most of the costs presented in Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found.”
I do not know what that refers to. It goes on:
“ECO4 has a spend envelope of £1 billion per year, rising with inflation, until March 2026. Suppliers are in turn assumed to recoup the costs they incur from meeting their obligation from their gas and electricity customers.”
It is clear that the money for the increased budget will come from energy bill payers. What is not in the impact assessment, however, unlike some other impact assessments, is what that represents in terms of bills; my calculation is that it roughly represents a £4 increase on bills over the period. I would welcome the Minister’s view on whether I have that about right, or whether that is more or less than it should be. That fact is that it will go to bill payers. We ought to think about whether that is an appropriate way to do such things, particularly as we have such sky-high bills at the moment, and will have for probably the whole period during which ECO4 will exist.
Our view is that an ECO4 scheme should have been substantially better funded than even the £1 billion, given the work that is ahead of us, and also that the difference between what there was in ECO3 and what there will be in ECO4 ought to be taxpayer-funded, not funded by bill payers in general. We also ought to be clear that, welcome though a number of the measures are, they will in fact be only a pinprick on the overall problem in this country with energy efficiency, energy uprates and retrofitted properties. One example of that is the—albeit welcome—carved-out slice in ECO4; that is, the 10% set aside for solid-wall housing, with 90,000 treatments to be undertaken over the course of ECO4. In the country as a whole, we have 7.8 million solid-wall homes, virtually all of which need to be substantially uprated in terms of energy efficiency and as a priority, because they are, by and large, in the lowest energy efficiency categories in the country.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I have many such properties in my constituency. It looks like beautiful Regency grandeur from the outside, but it is poor-quality housing on the inside, which is cold, damp and miserable for many of the tenants, who do not even have direct electricity or gas suppliers, but rather have secondary energy suppliers via their landlords. Does my hon. Friend agree that these measures are far too small in their application and that the Government need to adopt a street-by-street strategy, whereby they assess every house along every street, and develop an individual plan for energy efficiency for each of those houses? Without that, these measures will just deliver nice things and not the ambition that we need.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I was going to finish talking about what we would like to see by saying something along more or less precisely those lines. In the long term, we need to adopt a wholesale, locally organised and locally run, street-by-street and house-by-house arrangement, rather than what has happened with the ECO schemes in the past and still now, whereby individual houses are picked out by individual suppliers and are treated. That wholesale treatment, which my hon. Friend has rightly described, is still nowhere in view for these schemes.
My hon. Friend will know from his experience of solid-wall homes in his constituency that they are expensive to treat and need whole-house treatment. Indeed, that is reflected in the estimates for this ECO scheme. He will also be concerned to know that, in general terms, if the 90,000 treatments are discharged according to the calculations in the scheme, then we will reduce the number of homes that are outstanding for treatment by the huge proportion of 1.8%. That is to say that 97% of solid-wall homes across the country have not been treated, so 95% will still remain untreated at the end of the ECO4 period. This is a good scheme in its own lights, but it woefully falls short of what we need over the next period for serious retrofit in this country.
But my question, and what I take issue with, is this. Why are we sitting here on 18 July, passing into law—as I hope we will—the rules for a scheme that started on 1 April? Anybody with any experience of these sorts of things will know that it is a rather good idea to have the rules in place before a scheme starts. In this instance—despite what the Minister said about some of the “shutting the stable door” measures retrospectively undertaken in the interim, when ECO4 was not in place—suppliers and contractors have not known what they would be remunerated for, what they would not be remunerated for, or what risks their companies were taking in undertaking actions.
A lot of suppliers, particularly smaller contractors, have simply downed tools on measures to be carried out under ECO3 or ECO4, with an estimated 50,000 measures that could otherwise have been undertaken being lost over the period. For small contractors and suppliers, having to do all that work at their own risk, without knowing what the rules would be, or whether or when they would get their money back, was not something that they could stand.
That question was put to me by a number of suppliers some while ago, when ECO4 was still in development. As a result, I asked the Government a number of written questions about what would happen. Would there be a smooth transition and would the rules for the scheme be out in time? I must say, the answers I got were systematically evasive—and, as it turns out, systematically wrong. In answer to a question that I tabled on 25 November, the Government said:
“The current scheme ends in March 2022, followed by a successor scheme (ECO4). The publication of the government response to the ECO4 consultation is planned before the current scheme ends”.
That was wrong; it came out after the scheme ended.
I asked the Minister whether he would ensure that there was no gap between ECO3 and the start of ECO4 in April 2022. The Government’s response was that
“the Government consulted on extending the Energy Company Obligation…Scheme from 2022-26. The Government will issue a response in due course. ECO4 will commence once the Government has sought parliamentary approval. The Government will endeavour to ensure that there is a smooth transition between the end of ECO3 and the start of ECO4.”
Getting rather desperate, in May 2022—two months after the scheme was supposed to have started—I asked when the Government would lay the rules for the scheme to work. The answer was:
“The Government is working quickly to lay regulations.”
We now know that “quickly” means two months, because that is where we are now.
Of course, the Government were unfortunately rather clear with me about what would happen to suppliers who had undertaken work between the end of ECO3 and the start of ECO4 in the hope that they might get some sort of recompense for it. The answer was:
“The Government does not fund or reimburse suppliers to meet their obligations under the Energy Company Obligation. ECO is a supplier obligation, and it is up to suppliers how they dispense their obligation and recoup costs from energy bills.”
It is up to suppliers, when they do not even know the rules on whether they can get that recompense in the first place.
Finally, very late in the day, on 15 June, I asked why the Government had still not published the rules to implement the energy company obligation. The final answer was:
“The Government expects to lay regulations for ECO4 this month”,
meaning in June. Here we are, on 18 July, looking at those regulations.
Right down the line, the Government have got it wrong on what they said the progress on this was, and got it fundamentally wrong on the elementary task of ensuring that rules are in place before a scheme starts. That has made a real difference to retrofitting in this country, and it is a real difference that I fundamentally deplore.
It should have been within the competence of the Government to organise these rules in such a way that the scheme could progress reasonably fairly and seamlessly, and if they could not do so, it should have been within their competence to tell people why it was not happening and what the reasons were for it. None of those things has happened.
We have heard, I am afraid, a rather Panglossian version of these events from the Minister this afternoon, who says that, yes, people can get recompense now for work they have undertaken; it will score. However, they did not know that at the time because the rules were not there.
It has been a shambles. I hope the Minister will be able to say this afternoon that he is sorry for this shambles, and perhaps also explain—because I have been unable to get an explanation so far—why it has been such a shambles, why the rules are so late and why, as a result, the scheme was hampered in the way that it was. Finally, perhaps he could solemnly promise that this will never happen again in any schemes that he is involved with in future.
Alan Brown
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. Like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, I broadly welcome ECO4. With that welcome however, and as is my wont, I do have a few “buts”. Picking up on the shadow Minister’s theme, what has been the reason for the delay in the Government in bringing this forward? They knew years in advance that ECO3 was going to finish. The design of the ECO4 scheme was welcomed by industry, so why was it not brought forward quicker?
Paragraph 3.1 of the explanatory memorandum confirms how critical the timeframe now is: the instrument comes into force the day after it is made. That shows that it is a good job that there are not going to be any votes forced that could cause further delay. However, what discussions did the Minister have with retail energy companies about the impact on supply chains of the delay of ECO4 and paired regulations coming forward? It was absolutely critical that legislation come in pre-recess—that is now being done—but my understanding is that supply chains and the ability of companies to place orders were starting to be impacted. Hopefully the Minister can address that.
Looking ahead at the ECO4 period, what are the Government doing to ensure that companies fulfil their renewable obligation payments? At a previous Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee evidence session about retail energy companies starting to collapse, the Secretary of State said that it is known that some companies go bust when their renewable obligations levies were due to be paid. Since that tacit admission that the Government accepted that some companies would default in their RO payments, what has been done to ensure that that does not happen and that the payments are protected, and will the Minister respond to calls for the payments to be more regular so that the money comes forward?
Can the Minister advise what the value of the RO defaults for ECO3 was, and how many homes missed out as a consequence? On that basis, have the Government made any allowances for defaults in ECO4, and how will that be managed if companies go bust owing to the renewable obligations? What discussions has he had with the Treasury about match funding the welcome £1 billion commitment from ECO4? Industry and charities have been saying that now is the time for greater investment. If the Treasury match funded the £1 billion, think how much more could be done over the next period. Has the Minister considered that, or had any discussions with the Treasury on that basis?
The impact assessment gives a net present social value of £810 million. For business net present value, there is a huge negative figure of minus £3.8 billion. Can the Minister explain how that negative NPV came about? If it is to do with the benefits from the scheme, that would justify further investing more money. Paragraph 36 of the impact assessment states that 1.2 million “eligible private tenure homes” that are rated E, F or G in their energy performance certification will be eligible for the scheme. Given that paragraph 7.6, as the Minister confirmed, committed to 150,000 homes to be upgraded, what is the plan for the remaining 1 million-plus homes that will be left with an E, F or G rating in their energy performance certification?
The Government’s overall target is for all homes to be EPC band C by 2030, yet homes can be exempted where it is not practical, cost-effective or affordable. What does that exemption mean in real terms? That was something else the Secretary of State could not justify to me. How that exemption is assessed and monitored is critical to how many homes are ultimately upgraded to EPC band C.
Paragraph 3.2 of the explanatory notes confirms that energy suppliers have until March 2026 to deliver the outcomes, so obviously this is a four-year programme. What steps will be taken to ensure and assess that the programmes are on track right through that period? What steps will be taken to ensure that companies are not allowed to back end and therefore risk missing the 2026 deadlines for delivery?
Paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory notes states that:
“Market failures…are known to reduce the take up of cost-effective energy efficiency measures.”
I have to say, it is not market failure that has had an impact, but the Government’s failed policies. We had the failure of the green deal scheme, which included the Home Energy and Lifestyle Management Systems mis-selling scandal. When will the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy resolve the appeals backlog for the HELMS green deal mis-selling scandal? Why are more green deal plans not being cancelled outright? In recent times, we have had the failure of the green homes improvement voucher scheme. While we welcome ECO4, there need to be more rounded, coherent Government policies to go along with that. The UK Government should treat energy efficiency as a national infrastructure project, in the way the Scottish Government do.
While we welcome the increase in the budget to £1 billion, paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory memorandum confirms that that is based on 2021 prices. What recent assessment has been made of the impact of current inflation on that? We know that it is more difficult to get materials; the costs of materials have increased as well as labour costs. What assessment has been made of the validity of the £1 billion now and the impact that inflation is having on that?
I would like to put on the record that I welcome the confirmation in paragraph 7.5 about disability benefits eligibility and the fact that households in receipt of such benefits will still be eligible for upgrades in ECO4.
Paragraph 7.13 rules out biofuels. Can the Minister clarify why we would rule out biofuels? They could provide a useful transition between outright fossil fuel and getting to complete renewable energies. I cannot really get my head around that, so hopefully the Minister can explain it.
As I said in my intervention, I welcome the uplift for off-gas grid homes in Scotland and Wales. However, again, I would press the Minister on the fact that that needs to feed through in budgets and considerations in the wider spending envelope. Paragraph 7.24 also sets out an innovation uplift, which again is welcome. What measures will be put in place to assess the long-term performance of any measures installed that are deemed to be innovative? By virtue of the very term “innovation”, that will refer to technology that does not have a long, proven track record. What will be done to ensure that those new measures installed under the innovation uplift actually do what is required in the long term?
Paragraph 7.24 also highlights building fabric issues such as dampness, cracks and different faults that can be remedied and repaired. What will be done to ensure that it is not an easy uplift measure for companies to take advantage of? What will be done to ensure that it does not let private and social landlords off the hook in their responsibilities regarding the upkeep of the fabric of the buildings?
Paragraph 7.26 talks about incentivising delivery on time, but what does that look like? Does “on time” mean for the entire programme, for a sub-programme or for individual measures that are installed?
Turning back to the impact assessment, paragraph 49 states that the modelling is based on the English housing survey. What has been done to get a more representative understanding of the housing stock right across the UK, instead of trying just to extrapolate from an English survey of houses?
The shadow Minister asked about the impact on bills. From reading paragraph 94 of the impact assessment, it seems to me that the impact will be £37 per annum on duel fuel customers to pay for ECO4. Is that correct? How sustainable is it for bill payers to pay £37 with bills continuing to increase without putting more people into fuel poverty?
On the measures to address solid walls, I say to the Minister that we need to work with industry to find a solution for solid-wall homes, tenements and flats in the likes of Glasgow and Edinburgh, because they are particularly difficult to upgrade. That really needs a whole-building approach, or, as was suggested in an earlier intervention, a street by street approach. We really need to look at that and look to the future to be able to address these.
It is getting more difficult now to upgrade houses cost-effectively because the low-hanging fruit, as it were, has already been picked. What work has been done to identify the overall cost of upgrading the remaining stock? What work has been done to have a real forward look-ahead to meet the 2030 target?
I am sure everybody will be delighted that I am now going to sit down—and wipe the sweat from my face as well.
Greg Hands
This has been a good-natured and well-informed debate. I did not hear any opposition to the scheme, so I welcome the support of the Opposition parties for what the Government are doing. I will try to answer as many questions as I can. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test asked why the obligation is set low, but I disagree that it is set low. A £640 million scheme increased to a £1 billion scheme is a 56% increase—quite an ambitious increase.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun tried to pick holes and asked about inflation. Well, I have news for him: inflation is not anywhere close to 56%. I remember back in the 1970s that it did get into the high teens and to 20%, but we are not anywhere close to that, thankfully. He asked whether the scheme should be more ambitious. I remind him that ECO is only part of the help available. We have other Government schemes designed to improve the energy efficiency of homes, which is why this Government have such an excellent record on that.
I have to correct what I said earlier. I said that, in 2010, 10% of homes were rated A to C on energy efficiency. I checked my own notes, and it is not 10%, but 14%, so I may have been doing the last Labour Government a slight disservice. It is not, I am afraid to say, a quadrupling of the number of homes well rated under energy efficiency; it is in fact only a tripling, so I apologise. Perhaps I have been giving too much praise for the Government, but I none the less think that a tripling in the last 12 years is a record to be proud of.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun is right that ECO adds to bills, but those who benefit will of course get reduced bills for many decades, which it is important to understand. It is not a simple redistribution from non-vulnerable bill payers to other bill payers. It assists vulnerable bill payers in energy-inefficient homes to get their homes to be energy-efficient, thereby saving them a considerable amount of resources over many years. We are also providing direct help with the £400 energy bills support scheme and other measures introduced by the Treasury this year.
I am glad the hon. Member for Southampton, Test praised the co-operation with the private sector, housing associations, the NHS and local authorities. It is a whole-of-Government effort to improve the energy efficiency of our homes. He said there was an estimated £4 on bills a month, but the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun was correct: the estimate is £37 per annum—about £3 a month. I have said that it is not the only scheme available. We have £6.6 billion deployed over the course of this Parliament on energy efficiency schemes, including the £450 million boiler upgrade scheme, the social housing decarbonisation fund, the home upgrade grant, which I have already mentioned, and the public sector decarbonisation scheme, as well as the VAT reductions announced by the previous Chancellor earlier this year.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Is not part of the problem the myriad schemes that the Minister has outlined? For the normal person in the street, who lives in a shared house where part of it is owned by a person in poverty, another part is owned by someone else and another part is rented, it becomes so difficult for people to match these schemes up and get them in line at the right time, particularly when the Government do not issue guidelines on how the money should be spent for months on end. Is it not better for the Minister to go away and think of a universal scheme to start to tackle those problems, rather than this piecemeal effect?
Greg Hands
The hon. Member raises an important point, but an energy consumer does not have to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the available schemes. The important thing is that the Government provide that assistance, in some cases via energy suppliers, local authorities or social housing providers. If he wants to write to me to suggest which schemes he might seek to abolish in favour of putting it all in one scheme, I would happily receive such a representation.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test said the solid wall insulation minimal requirement should be higher. ECO4 will focus on the least energy-efficient properties and, as I mentioned earlier, we have introduced a requirement for a minimum of 150,000 band E, F and G private tenure homes to be treated. Most of those will be solid-walled homes and we estimate that around 75% of total scheme spending will go towards improving them to band D or better. We believe the current solid wall minimum strikes the right balance between giving certainty to the supply chain and giving them the flexibility to treat homes in the most important way. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown sought a street-by-street approach—an area-based scheme. We expect area-based schemes to happen as installers involved in ECO also deliver under the home upgrade grant, the social housing decarbonisation fund and the local authority delivery scheme. We already know of installers planning to work in that way.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test asked why the scheme was delayed. It is worth stating that ECO4 is the most significant reform since the scheme began nine years ago. We have had to ensure that it is fit for purpose until March 2026—it is important to get that right. This has presented new challenges in policy design, modelling and legal drafting. As I have already mentioned, however, nearly 33,000 measures have been installed since 1 April and registered with TrustMark. We expect that number to rise by several thousand because, obviously, there is a time lag between installation and registration. That is not a bad rate. This is a scheme of 450,000 households over four years, so that is roughly 110,000 per annum, so the fact that in three months, 33,000 measures have been installed shows there has been no discernible impact on delivery from the change from ECO3 to ECO4.
The hon. Member read us a long chronology of parliamentary questions and the different points he has made. I will never forget in my first year in Parliament when I asked a point of order to the Speaker. I read out a long chronology relating to a then Labour Minister, who had failed to provide an answer. The then Speaker—the glorious late Michael Martin—replied to me with just one word, “Persevere.” That was all he said to me. I will not urge the hon. Member to persevere. I say to him that at the end of that long chronology, he was not actually able to demonstrate that there had been any deficiency, that anybody had been damaged or that any measures had not been delivered as a result of ECO4 coming in three months after the scheduled end of ECO3. We covered it due to the extension of ECO3 and the bringing forward of measures in ECO4. That has been solved, and the hon. Member should join us in celebrating those 33,000 measures that have been installed just in the last three months.
Moreover, by allowing suppliers to overdeliver against their ECO3 targets—referred to as carryover—at least 40,000 extra measures were delivered earlier than they otherwise would have been. We have engaged with energy suppliers, and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asked about the supply chain.
Dr Whitehead
If the Minister thought all along that because of all the various issues and complexities of this particular scheme, it would take longer than originally anticipated and there would be a gap in schemes, why did he not say so at the time? Why did he give me a series of replies to my questions, which said anything but that being the case?
Greg Hands
Sometimes, when we are making a reform, it is not always obvious where that reform process will lead. Let us bear in mind that there was a big consultation and we wanted to hear from suppliers and consumer groups, so we obviously wanted to look closely at the responses to the consultation. I have already mentioned the consultation in response to the point of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun; we want a GB-wide scheme. It was right and proper to wait for the responses to the consultation before laying out our reform measures.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I promise to be brief. Part of the technical consultation that the Minister has alluded to for solid walls is really important. Is there a major gain in preventing the latent heat of evaporation by putting a PVA coating on the outside of walls? Do we have to lose space from inside homes that may already be small to provide initial internal insulation? Does he agree that it was important to take time to ensure that the industry and different providers could work out how to get the most bang for their buck to move it forward?
Greg Hands
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is making an intervention on my hon. Friend’s intervention, but my hon. Friend makes a good point about the strong measures that we are taking on solid wall insulation, which are important to get right—the most important thing. I do not think that anybody could point to any damage that has been caused by this; we have continued to deliver a huge number of measures in those three months. We should look at the new scheme and welcome the additional measures that we are taking to help vulnerable households.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asked about the solar process; it is a matter for Ofgem to ensure that ECO is protected in that. Obligations are calculated annually and suppliers must fulfil their obligation. Any supplier that went bust would lose the obligation. So far, only very small—or relatively small—suppliers have gone bust. The larger suppliers have continued to fulfil their obligation under ECO3.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about discussions with the Treasury. As you will know, Mr Sharma, it is always difficult to disclose matters relating to a discussion with the Treasury, so I will pass on that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the negative NPV of £3.8 million; I will have to write to him on the exact details of that. On the 1 million homes that would be left in bands E, F and G after these schemes, we recognise that this scheme will not improve every home in the country. To help with that effort, we have additional schemes in place that I have already mentioned. Of course, some homes will not be able to be upgraded to band C or above, or it would not be cost-efficient to do so, but hopefully that will be a very small number.
Alan Brown
The Minister spoke about solar and how the renewables obligation will be protected. Does he know how the renewables obligation will work for Bulb Energy, which is obviously in a special administration regime but still supplying a large number of customers? Will it be eligible to pay RO and will that just be an additional burden that is picked up with the administration costs?
Greg Hands
The hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question. Obviously, that will be a matter for the Bulb Energy administrators. I am happy to write to him with more detail on how they might look at that in terms of ECO4.
Greg Hands
Of course, there are separate administrators for different parts of the company. I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun about how the administrators might approach that issue in relation to ECO4.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the back end and risk delivery, which has not happened before with ECO1, 2 and 3. Obviously, however, Ofgem monitors that closely to make sure that there is no risk of suppliers back-ending their obligations. To the best of my knowledge, we have not had that problem in the previous three schemes.
On a budget by nations, I think I am right in saying that Scotland, along with the north of England, has benefited the most of the nations or regions of the United Kingdom from the previous ECO1, 2 and 3 schemes. It has very much been, to date, a scheme where disproportionately Scotland and the north of England have benefited. I know that the hon. Member likes to create grievances here on behalf of Scotland. He is even having a pre-emptive grievance. The scheme has not even started and he is already ratcheting up the grievance policy. I have to say that from my experience of the previous ECO1, 2 and 3 schemes, Scotland has been very well served, as has the north of England. I think we should continue to celebrate that. The hon. Member asked about a biofuels exclusion. There is competition for biofuels, and they may be better used elsewhere, but we also do not want to maintain low-income homes on volatile fuels wherever possible.
The Government recognise that millions of households across the UK may need further support with the cost of living and the extraordinary increase in the cost of energy, which we have witnessed this year. That is why the Government have announced additional support this year worth over £37 billion, including targeted support for those on the lowest incomes. The Government remain committed to helping low-income, vulnerable households to reduce their fuel bills and heat their homes. Improving the energy efficiency of our homes is the best long-term solution to achieve this. Tackling fuel poverty is an essential for our transition to net zero. That is why we are spending £6.6 billion over the course of this Parliament and expanding the previous ECO3 system into a much larger ECO4 scheme, targeted particularly at the more vulnerable and those living in the least energy-efficient homes.
The Government have an excellent record in improving the energy efficiency of homes in this country—from 14%, the level we inherited from the last Government, to 46% today. That still means that 54% of homes in the United Kingdom are rated below band C for energy efficiency. That does not give any cause for complacency. I think we can see with the action taken by this Government that we have improved the energy efficiency of homes gradually and considerably over the last 12 years, and we will continue to do so with ECO4. Therefore, I commend this draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) Order 2022.
Ministerial Correction
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vicky Ford
On covid, I remind the Select Committee Chair that we were at the forefront of the international response to covid-19. We pledged up to £1.2 billion to address the impacts of the pandemic.
[Official Report, 6 July 2022, Vol. 717, c. 970.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion).
The correct information should have been:
Vicky Ford
On covid, I remind the Select Committee Chair that we were at the forefront of the international response to covid-19. We pledged up to £2.1 billion to address the impacts of the pandemic.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
BTEC Qualifications
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Before we start, I want to say something about the exceptional heat. While the heat remains at this level, I am content for Members not to wear jackets or ties in Westminster Hall. Mr Speaker has announced similar arrangements for the main Chamber. When the House returns in the autumn, Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers will expect Members to revert to wearing jackets and will also strongly encourage male members to wear ties when speaking in the main Chamber and in Westminster Hall.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 592642, relating to BTEC qualifications.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Mark. The petition, entitled “Protect student choice: do not withdraw funding for BTEC qualifications”, aims to reverse the plan to withdraw funding for most applied general qualifications, such as BTECs, and guarantee that they will continue to play a major role in the qualifications landscape.
The petition is about choice, and not forcing students to choose between studying only A-levels or T-Levels from the age of 16. I begin by acknowledging and congratulating the #ProtectStudentChoice coalition, an unprecedented gathering of 30 organisations from various sectors, including the Association of School and College Leaders, national teachers’ unions and the National Union of Students, for its brilliant campaigning against the defunding of BTECs.
The strong level of support—including the petition, which gathered over 108,329 signatures, leading to today’s debate—is credit to the brilliant work done by the coalition and, in particular, by the petition’s creators, Noni and James at the Sixth Form Colleges Association. The fact that the Government have had to make changes to their plans—although those changes still do not go far enough—shows the power of the work of the coalition and the value of the petition. I also want to say a special thanks to St Francis Xavier Sixth Form College and South Thames College in my Battersea constituency—two brilliant institutions providing BTECs for young people in Battersea and neighbouring constituencies.
Many of us are here because we are passionate about ensuring that the education system provides young people with the skills employers need. As we come out of the pandemic, we need students to finish education well equipped to progress to further training or to get skilled jobs, allowing businesses to recover and young people to flourish. That is why I am extremely concerned about the Government’s proposal to remove funding for the vast majority of BTECs. That will remove choice for many young people and may lead to some missing the opportunity to go to university.
Several hon. Members rose—
Marsha De Cordova
I have too much choice. That is what we want our students to have, right? I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer).
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend, who is a dear friend of mine, on securing the debate. BTECs have been a lifeline for so many of my constituents across St Helens and Knowsley. They have a positive impact on social mobility and have helped so many young people get on in life. Does my hon. Friend agree that BTECs offer the right balance of academic and vocational learning, and that funding for them must be maintained?
Marsha De Cordova
I congratulate my hon. Friend on making that point; she has clearly read my speech, because I am going to come on to that. She is absolutely spot on. That is why I was proud to join over 100 parliamentarians calling on the Government to reconsider their plan.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right: one thing that we want to promote, of course, is choice. I agree that scrapping BTECs will hinder social mobility, and hinder progress into skilled labour markets and higher education. As Paul Britton, the principal of Wyke Sixth Form College, pointed out—I am a bit biased as I went there myself as a student—scrapping BTECs will also have an impact on the local economy. Not only is it bad for social mobility, but it is bad for choice and for the local economy. I support BTECs so much that even my daughter is going to do one next year.
Marsha De Cordova
Fantastic—I could not say it better myself. My hon. Friend makes a fantastic contribution and she is absolutely right: it is not just about social mobility; it is about the local economy too.
The introduction of T-levels does have value in terms of technical education; however, there is no rationale for why BTEC qualifications must make way for them. It makes sense to have A-levels, T-levels and BTECs in all future qualification landscapes. It is clear that the Government are forcing through these changes so they can drive up T-level take-up. The Sixth Form Colleges Association has described T-levels as a
“minority, untested product that the Government is pushing as a mass product.”
It is still too early to analyse the effectiveness of T-levels. The Government should not be pulling away from BTECs without evidence about the success of T-levels. That is grossly unfair to young people, removing their choice and opportunity.
The notion that we can divide people into “academic” or “technical” is wrong. BTECs provide a different type of educational experience—one that combines the development of skills with academic learning. I believe that the Minister studied a BTEC and said that it had a transformative impact on her life. Perhaps she agrees with me that, after last week, we need a new BTEC course on public anger management.
Leaders from various education institutions have said that, for some students, BTECs will continue to be a more effective route to higher education or skilled employment than studying A-levels or T-levels.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I am fortunate to have Peter Symonds College in my constituency. It is one of the biggest in England and it educates about 4,500 young people. Many of its students progress to higher education or to skilled employment after studying an applied general qualification such as a BTEC. Does the hon. Lady agree that if the Government are to proceed with this policy and remove BTECs, we need to hear from the new Minister—I welcome her to her place—what viable pathway they envisage for those young people who will then want to move on to higher education or skilled employment through colleges such as Peter Symonds, which serves my constituents and those of many of the MPs around me in Hampshire?
Marsha De Cordova
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. It is important that we retain the three routes that are currently available.
In particular, BTECs provide a good route to get young people into university. The Nuffield Foundation found that around a quarter of students who go to university have BTEC qualifications. A significant number of those students complete their studies successfully, with 60% graduating with at least an upper second-class degree. The Government must listen to students. It is clear from the data that students value these qualifications. An estimate suggests that around 34% of the 921,046 16 to 18-year-olds studying a level 3 qualification in England are pursuing at least one BTEC.
On the benefits of BTECs, I will share some students’ experiences. First, BTECs allow students to specialise and learn a wider range of skills. Isabella, who is studying for a BTEC in IT at St Francis Xavier Sixth Form College, said:
“If I was to do A level computer science, I would have to pick two other subjects that weren’t related to my chosen career path…I would like to do something in artificial intelligence or computer science or web developing and I realised that me doing BTEC IT really benefits me as I study a lot of”
those areas.
Secondly, BTECs are more accessible than alternatives such as T-levels. Summer, a level 3 aviation operations student at Newcastle College, said:
“Many people won’t meet the qualifications”
to go on to T-levels, and
“everyone deserves an education no matter what grades they get.”
Thirdly, BTECs also lead to beneficial health outcomes, including for mental health. Sylvia, who is studying art, design and communications at St Francis Xavier College, said:
“I don’t need to worry about exams or any tests, I’m just in the moment—I design buildings and I build them.”
Not everybody is cut out to do exams.
The reality is that the plan for T-levels and A-levels to become the qualifications of choice for most young people will leave many students—including those with special educational needs or disabilities and those from a black, Asian or ethnic minority background—without a viable pathway after their GCSEs. The Department for Education’s own impact assessment concluded that such students had the most to lose from these changes. Defunding BTECs risks reversing the progress made by higher education institutions, especially in London, on access and participation in recent years. BTECs are engines of social mobility, as my hon. Friends have highlighted. Research from the Social Market Foundation found that 44% of white working-class students who enter university studied at least one BTEC, and that 37% of black students enter with only BTEC qualifications.
The Government have now said that they plan to delay the defunding until 2024-25 rather than 2023-24, and that their plans will apply to only a “small proportion” of the total level 3 BTECs and other applied general-style qualifications. On the first point, delaying a bad idea does not stop it being a bad idea. On the second, removing a small proportion of qualifications for which a high proportion of students are enrolled will still have a devastating impact. For example, around 80% of applied general enrolments in the sixth form college sector are in just 20 subject areas.
It is time for the Government to listen, and they need to consider reversing their plans. Does the Minister think that the new Prime Minister will change the Conservative party’s disastrous policy on this issue? Will she guarantee that funding will not be removed for any BTEC qualifications unless an impartial, evidence-based assessment has concluded that they are not valued by students, universities and employers? Will she ensure that students and practitioners can contribute to the process of identifying qualifications that are deemed to overlap with T-levels? Can she assure us that some of the most popular BTECs—in subjects such as health, business, IT and applied sciences—will not be scrapped through the reapproval process simply to help drive up the numbers of students taking T-levels?
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Before my hon. Friend comes to the end of her speech, may I say to her that it is not just in London that BTECs have proved so useful? It is also the case in the west midlands conurbation, which has a very diverse population and a sizeable skills gap. That is why the Government should look at offering BTECs alongside T-levels. T-levels have a huge role to play, and employer demand is there, but employers also recognise the upgrading of young people’s skills and abilities through undertaking BTECs. It is not just on the educational side, but on what the Government always say they are looking at—the outputs, which employers value as well.
Marsha De Cordova
My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on.
In conclusion, the Government argue that changes are needed and that their plans are about streamlining and improving the quality of post-16 qualifications, but I and others firmly disagree with that assessment. We do not believe that the reforms will achieve their desired outcomes. The Government need to listen not just to me but to students, practitioners and employers, who all see the value of retaining BTEC qualifications.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be here now that I am back on the Back Benches, as one of the 56 who were driven to resign. This is the first debate that I have spoken in since then, which demonstrates how important I feel it is. There are a number of reasons for that.
BTEC qualifications are important nationally and for my constituency, which has several excellent further education colleges that I will mention. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who opened the debate. There were 669 signatories to the petition in my constituency—the eighth highest by number of constituents. Normally, when so many people sign a petition, it demonstrates that lots of others support the subject. That is why I am here.
To cut to the chase, I understand the need to equip students between 16 and 18, or indeed those studying in later life, with the best skills and tools to get into jobs and to work with the businesses that need them. That is really important for growing our economy. In that respect, I supported the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022.
I have real concerns, however, about the proposal to axe BTEC qualifications, which, in a large proportion of cases, function perfectly well. I completely understand that it would be worth looking at the multifarious range of courses, because clearly some are repetitive and some do not quite align with the jobs and skills we need, but a great many of them certainly do. I do not believe that they should just be removed so that people are left with only T-levels and A-levels. I perfectly understand their place as well, but it seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to get rid of something that is already performing well.
Emma Hardy
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. I hope that the Minister will recognise that T-levels are not universally available throughout the country, because of the work placement requirement that comes with them. Getting rid of BTECs and replacing them with T-levels actually limits choice for people, because the availability of T-levels is variable and depends on the jobs in the local economy.
Rebecca Pow
That is a really good point. It was not raised by people in my area—it may not be the case there—but the case certainly has been made that T-levels are basically the equivalent of three A-levels rolled together, and not every student is quite ready to do that. Students also have to get the same qualifications at GCSE to do a T-level, so already, one might be alienating a certain number of students who might find the BTEC really good and go on to do some of these other things. There are many things that I urge the Minister—I welcome her to her place—to look at and listen to, now that we have this reprieve.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The hon. Lady has hit on an important point. If the Government are saying that T-levels have greater rigour than BTECs, and if, by definition, T-levels will not be appropriate for many students who currently do BTECs, the Government have to tell us what their plan is for those students. If the plan is not a level 3 qualification, what is it?
Rebecca Pow
I am not always the first person to agree with the Opposition, but I think we have a lot of synergy here. What is most important is putting students first and coming up with what we can do for them—and then, in fairness, what they can do to help the country and the economy because they are well trained and they have the right skills.
We have a reprieve, but I believe that it is only a delay at the moment. I urge the Minister to use that delay to listen to all these comments and work out what sort of system might keep all three qualifications in the right shape or form.
Steve Brine
Further to my earlier intervention on the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), if the Government wish to proceed with this, they have the right to do so—if they can convince the House that it is the right thing to do. However, young people have had enough anxiety over the last few years, and they are making decisions now. They do not have time for delay and navel gazing. We need a steer sooner rather than later; otherwise, it just adds to their anxiety.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I think that we all recognise that our students have come through a very difficult time. Indeed, the colleges, in planning, also need some clear steers. His point is well made.
I want to speak very specifically about my own sixth-form college, Richard Huish College, which has been rated outstanding by Ofsted for the third consecutive year, and has an outstanding record over 20 years. Nearly 800 students every year do applied general qualifications—that is, BTECs—and a significant number go on to very high-quality education and a whole range of other courses. BTECs are definitely a useful stepping-stone. I have spoken to those students, and many of the points that I am about to raise have come from those discussions. I will highlight some of the examples. One student did two A-levels, psychology and sociology, and then a BTEC in music production. She has gone on to Magdalen College, Oxford, to do human sciences.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
That is a really important point. BTECs can enable students to go to university at Oxford and Cambridge, but Oxford and Cambridge will not recognise the T-level subjects.
Rebecca Pow
That is another well-made point. All those things must go into the mix in making sure that we get this right for our young people.
Another example is a student who studied the BTEC extended diploma in public services and went on to do paramedic science at the University of Plymouth. Another did the business BTEC and went on to do a higher-level apprenticeship with the accountants Ernst and Young. Another did the extended diploma in public services and went on to join Avon and Somerset police. Another did health and social care, and went on to an adult nursing degree at Cardiff University. A further student did a health and social care diploma and went on to a teaching course at the University of Plymouth—and so on and so forth. That demonstrates the breadth of the qualification.
There is also a strong link, particularly in my constituency, between students doing a health-related BTEC and then going into nursing, which is critical. We have another very good FE college, University Centre Somerset. In fairness, it does T-levels and BTECs, and that is all going well, but it takes a lot of students on to its nursing courses. We need those people in Somerset, and probably all over the country. We particularly need them in Somerset because we have a wonderful new hospital. As the MP, I was responsible for helping to get the upgrade and the new theatres, and we are working on that. There is a massive call for more nurses, and we want those nurses to stay in my lovely constituency. If we can train them there, and they can get a great, well-paid job, we will not haemorrhage them to elsewhere in the country. We need them to stay in Somerset, particularly because we have an ageing population. I would like my young people to stay in my wonderful constituency.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an important point about the link-up and the circular needs in our local communities. For example, students can do a biomedical science BTEC at Luton Sixth Form College, they can go to the University of Bedfordshire in Luton and then they can work at Luton and Dunstable University Hospital. Would she agree that it is important that that practical link-up is maintained?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. That is exactly the point that I was trying to make. We are demonstrating that that is what is happening in Somerset. I certainly want that to continue, and in fact to grow, and for us to nurture all those people to live and work in this wonderful environment. It is a beautiful environment in which to work anyway, so if we can give them a good job and good training, I am sure that they will be tempted to stay. That is particularly important. A significant number of people go into teaching from these courses, which is also important. There are a lot of concerns that moving from this binary system of T-levels and A-levels, and that it will mean our BTECs become defunded, so can the Minister assure me that that will not be the case? As I said, it will be much more appropriate for many young people to start with the BTEC.
On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), we want our students to have a viable pathway, and that point about the uncertainty was such a good one because they will already be thinking, “BTECs are the way for me”—having that confidence because it is not three A-levels rolled into one—but suddenly they are getting a bit uncertain about what we are doing for them.
The point that the hon. Member for Battersea and others made so ably about disadvantaged backgrounds is significant, because the data shows that a high proportion of people from disadvantaged backgrounds start with a BTEC and loads of them go on to university. The universities know that, and we are trying to level up and include everybody. That is something that needs to be taken into account.
I will make one further point, which is particularly relevant to Somerset. We have a high proportion of small and medium-sized enterprises in our county, and they simply cannot provide the 45 days of work experience required for a T-level. I understand why that is important and why T-levels are designed to include it, but these are not huge companies; they are small SMEs, and a lot of them find it difficult to give somebody even a week’s work experience. That needs a lot of attention, because otherwise even the T-levels will struggle in Somerset. What we do not want is to be left with a whole load of brilliant young students for whom A-levels are not appropriate and a T-level is not appropriate, and who are just not getting the opportunities that they need.
To conclude, my plea is to look at this really carefully and listen to what everybody is saying, because we are all saying it with the best intentions. We want to support the Government and their skills and opportunities agenda, because that is absolutely the right way to go. It is really good to be looking at all of this, but could we potentially have an evidence-based assessment of the whole situation so that we are doing the right thing for our young people?
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for leading the debate and speaking with characteristic eloquence about what the Government’s plans to defund applied general qualifications will mean for young people living in her constituency.
Like my hon. Friend, I have been deeply moved by the many messages I have received in recent weeks from students studying at Wirral Metropolitan College, urging me to speak in this debate and to stand up and defend the principle of student choice. Many of those young people live in some of the most deprived communities in the country, and they understand all too well what the Government do not: that guaranteeing young people access to a wide range of educational opportunities is essential if they are to realise their full potential. That message has been underscored by many of my older constituents who now work in sectors as diverse as academia, administration and aerospace, for whom BTECs were a vital stepping stone towards university or training in industry.
Much of today’s discussion will understandably focus on pathways to work or further study, but we must never forget that education is all about broadening one’s horizons in other senses. Although much of what a person studies at age 17 and 18 has little bearing on their day-to-day work, it nevertheless plays an important role in shaping more well-rounded, thoughtful and inquisitive adults. Since the Conservatives came into office 12 long years ago, education policy has been treated as a plaything for policymakers, who have little grounding in the sector and are more interested in ideology than in outcomes. Rhetoric has trumped hard-earned experience and successive Education Secretaries have been free to make far-reaching reforms, despite the protestations of education experts, practitioners and young people themselves.
The result is that today levels of social mobility are in freefall, while the UK continues to lag far behind our European neighbours when it comes to investment in technical training and education. Now Ministers want to do away with a system of qualifications that is widely respected, recognised and understood, replacing it with T-levels, which are entirely untried and untested.
For many people working in further education, these plans will undoubtedly revive memories of the ill-fated vocational diplomas and A-levels. However, whereas those served only to distract the Government from attending to the more profound questions concerning education provision, I fear that these new proposals will have the far graver consequence of entrenching long-standing educational inequalities for years to come. Indeed, the University and College Union has warned that by limiting student choice to a traditional academic education or a narrower vocational pathway, we risk giving rise to an overlooked middle of learners who are unable to access either.
For far too long, the Government’s approach towards education policy has been warped by a grotesque desire to preserve a privileged education for the elite few, and by the belief that university is somehow innately superior to a vocational education. The consequence is that vocational education is today poorly understood, even by Ministers who seek to reform it.
Ministers have fundamentally failed to grasp the fact that not everyone studying a vocational subject wishes to enter an occupational role, and nor should they be expected to commit to such a significant decision at such a young age. The education unions are quite right to fear that the Government’s plans for T-levels risk forcing some students, who would otherwise study BTECs, into lower levels of learning or out of education entirely.
Our country faces some extraordinary challenges in the coming years. The landscape of work is set to be fundamentally transformed by the growing pace of automation, while the existential threat posed by the climate crisis demands that we invest in an unprecedented level to lay the foundations for a high-skilled and green economy. These changes all have enormous implications for the future of education provision and, in particular, vocational education. We are in desperate need of a rethink of our priorities and a clean break with the idea that a vocational education is somehow second rate.
However, instead of showing the vision, ambition and commitment to fundamental change that the times call for, Ministers are instead focusing on repackaging technical qualifications and restricting student choice. In the short term, it is young working-class people in my constituency who will suffer, but soon enough our whole country will be forced to pay the price.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Mark. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and the Petitions Committee for scheduling the debate. The petition has attracted many signatures from my Meon Valley constituency and elsewhere in Hampshire, where we are fortunate to have some really strong colleges serving our students. Although I do not have a sixth-form college in my constituency, some of my constituents attend colleges in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) and other nearby colleges. In the lead-up to the debate, I have been contacted directly by student constituents who have concerns, and I am pleased to speak on their behalf too.
In the post-covid landscape, we must help students to catch up, as well as ensuring that education meets the changing needs of employers and the future life of young people. One thing that I know employers look for is certainty. There has been an endless debate about the value of qualifications and about how well qualifications relate to what employers need, which is why I wrote a paper on assessment nearly two years ago and why there have been five commissions since on the subject, which I will come to later. Indeed, tomorrow we will be setting up an all-party parliamentary group on assessment—I say that in case anybody here is interested in joining.
With BTEC, we have a proven qualification in many subjects that provides value for everyone—students and employers. Qualifications such as BTEC are taken close to the point at which many students are likely to enter work. They are relatively more important than A-levels to young people who are not going to university, as they prepare students well for work immediately, whereas university students have another three or four years before facing career-level employers for the first time after graduating.
I am pleased that most universities recognise BTECs as part of the mix of qualifications for entry to university. I did not know about T-levels, but I have looked them up and the hon. Member for Battersea is absolutely right that Cambridge and Oxford do not accept them at this stage, but I hope that might change.
I welcome the intentions towards employability skills that the Government showed in bringing in T-levels. However, where BTEC qualifications best fit the needs of students and employers, they should be retained. Let us take nursing and healthcare, for instance. All the medical bodies have said that they are concerned about the impact of scrapping BTEC courses on their ability to recruit in future. Students who take BTECs can become support workers, and many go on to qualify as nurses, midwives and radiographers. NHS employers estimate that about one fifth of those studying for a nursing degree started with a health and social care BTEC. At the same time, NHS bodies have doubts about the viability of replacement T-levels because, as we have heard, they require a 45-day work placement, which many employers struggle to offer. That is a problem for people who want to go into medicine too; finding work experience is very difficult. Ending BTECs without having a suitable replacement will make it hard to recruit into those professions and others, including apprenticeships, so we must ensure that every route into those jobs is kept open.
We should also look at the social impact of the proposed changes. The equalities impact assessment, which formed part of the Government’s response to the consultation, states that removing BTECs will mean that some students do not attain a qualification at level 3. There is simply a commitment to mitigate that with a higher-quality level 2, and mitigations are outlined to support continued progression to level 3, but it is not clear what they will be. The EIA highlights concerns about the uncertainty of the future approval criteria.
Hon. Members will agree that to expect students to start on a path when neither they nor the Government know where it will lead is unacceptable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) articulated well. The EIA is clear that students from minority and more deprived backgrounds will be disproportionately affected by this change. It is not good enough to say that we will make a better level 2 for them. That is not how we advance social mobility.
This experience should teach us that the structure of senior education assessment is becoming more confused, not less. We have A-levels for the academic strand, which is completely separate from vocational strands. T-levels do not provide learning in some subjects in the way that BTECs do. We are proposing to end BTECs in general while retaining some specialist qualification. As I mentioned in the paper that I wrote, it is time to look again at how we structure education between the ages of 14 and 18 so that young people can work towards a range of qualifications that complement each other—education and vocational, with the ability to do different strand at the same time.
We should end the situation in which young people take GCSEs, which are only a milestone in their education, before moving into a confused offer of A-levels, T-levels and whatever other limited qualifications remain after this review. We need a vocational path alongside T-levels. All the commissions that have published on this subject agree that our assessment system is no longer fit for purpose.
University technical colleges are one of the best innovations in education in decades. Many of my constituents go to one in Portsmouth, and I would love to have more surrounding my constituency, because the demand for UTC places in Hampshire outstrips supply. That is the right kind of environment for young people to take in a mixture of subjects and qualifications. By starting at 14, they avoid a jolt in students’ education at 16. Students do GCSEs, but it is a secondary thing; it is something they have to get through, rather than linking to what they want to do.
Steve Brine
As usual, my hon. Friend is making a very thoughtful speech. In Hampshire, we have a tertiary system: we have big sixth-form colleges and very few sixth forms attached to state secondary schools. UTCs are an important element of choice that maintains the system that has worked well and served our county and constituents for many years.
Mrs Drummond
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That should not stop a curriculum that starts at 14 and continues to 18. It just means that it continues in a different building, perhaps with a different uniform. It is a way of progressing, and it is very easy to do. It should not be a barrier to changing to a different sort of curriculum. It also means that people would have a much more coherent education. They would then be able to go into the workplace, further training or higher education, properly equipped with a wide range of experience. It is a bit like an English baccalaureate, although I do not think we should call it a baccalaureate—I have spoken about that many times and will not speak about it now.
Employers, teachers and students in my constituency all tell me that we should have a meaningful reform of senior education, and I agree. The present situation with BTEC, as this petition emphasises, is one that we must avoid letting happen again.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on leading the debate with an excellent speech, and the #ProtectStudentChoice coalition on their excellent campaigning on the issue. I am a proud former student, and now governor, of Luton Sixth Form College—the UK’s first sixth-form college—which now educates over 3,000 students. I am also pleased to be co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sixth form education, so I would like to extend my thanks to the Sixth Form Colleges Association in particular for all their hard work in the area.
Every student deserves a first-class education, and I know that giving students choice to shape their learning, assessment and career path is critical to their successfully achieving their future aspirations. However, the Government’s proposals seem to fly in the face of that. #ProtectStudentChoice estimates that at least 34% of the 16 to 18-year-olds studying a level 3 qualification in England are pursuing at least one applied general qualification—that is more than 300,000 students. Many young people would be better served studying an applied general qualification, such as a BTEC, rather than an A-level or T-level-only study programme. It should not be one route over another. The three-route model would work well. That is why the over 108,000 people who signed the petition and I are steadfast in our opposition to the Government’s plan to defund BTECs.
Working class people in my town should not be held back by that short-sighted narrowing of opportunities. BTECs have transformed the life chances of thousands of young people in Luton and made a significant contribution to our local economy—there are numerous examples of young people in Luton pursuing their aspirations through BTECs, whether that be work, further qualifications or university—and that is backed up by research. I have made the point many times before that disadvantaged young people are among those with the most to lose from the Government’s plans. That is evidenced by the Department for Education’s own equality impact assessment, which states
“those from SEND backgrounds, Asian ethnic groups, disadvantaged backgrounds, and males”
are
“disproportionately likely to be affected.”
BTECs are a route to university for many of those young people. The Social Market Foundation found that 44% of white working-class students that enter university studied at least one BTEC, and that 37% of black students enter with only BTEC qualifications. The Nuffield Foundation found that a quarter of students now enter university with BTEC qualifications, and are more likely to be from disadvantaged backgrounds. The vast majority of BTEC students complete their studies successfully, with 60% graduating with at least a 2:1.
I was contacted by a constituent ahead of the debate to share their experiences studying BTECs. They said that:
“Dyslexia greatly affects my short-term memory, making exam-based qualifications which rely on memory recall, such as A-levels, almost completely out of reach for myself and others with dyslexia.”
Instead, they
“pursued a BTEC in mechanical engineering, which allowed for me to be assessed on coursework and practical applications across the span of two years. If it was not for my BTEC qualification and the support I received throughout that process, I would not be able to pursue a BEng at university today.”
They summed the point up better than I could, saying that:
“BTECs are a vital lifeline to all neurodivergent and underprivileged children in the UK, for whom A-levels may not be a viable option. Students with dyslexia, ADHD and ASD face larger barriers to mainstream forms of education than most, and by cutting funding for BTECs, it will ultimately deter these students from achieving their potential and integrating them into industry workforces.”
Mr Perkins
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. This Government have had an obsession with exams over the course of the last 12 years, as though they are the only way of demonstrating what a student knows. Does the fact that so many students get a second chance through BTECs, and go on to be successful at university and get degrees, not prove that the focus on exams, and on dismissing the achievements of those students who have qualifications largely based on coursework, is entirely wrongheaded?
Rachel Hopkins
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will go on to talk about choices and how people can progress and make different choices about their careers and future, and what they want to do, but that is exactly it. Narrowing those options will make things much more difficult.
I would be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment has been made of how to support neurodivergent students who will be impacted by the proposals to defund BTECs. Altaf Hussain, principal of Luton Sixth Form College, based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), has made this point to me:
“By allowing that flexibility for A Levels and forcing the T Level route for students with lower prior attainment the government is creating a divided society that is penalising the most vulnerable in our society. The point is that many young people do not want to, or even should not have to, decide their future path at 16. Interests, aspirations and capabilities all change”.
To re-emphasise the point, it is not about favouring one route over others, but empowering young people to shape their own learning. T-levels could be a welcome development, but they should sit alongside BTECs, rather than replace them.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need to keep options open for young people. Deciding our whole future at the age of 16 would have been unrealistic for most of us, and it flies in the face of what most educational systems around western Europe are doing. Does my hon. Friend also agree that employers want young people with a rounded range of skills and qualifications—vocational, academic and practical—and that the obsession with people going down an academic or a vocational route is completely at odds with what happens in most workplaces?
Rachel Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for her—as ever—very thoughtful contribution, and I thoroughly agree with her. As Ministers know, T-levels will not fill the gap, because this is not just about the qualification and the specific workplace at the end of the process, but about tailoring learning and types of assessment to suit people’s development.
I understand that the Government’s justification for defunding some BTEC qualifications is that they overlap with one of the new T-level qualifications, or that they have not been reapproved as they do not meet new quality and necessity criteria. The #ProtectStudentChoice campaign has raised concerns about the overlap process: it is not transparent, and some unusual decisions have been made regarding qualifications. For example, one awarding organisation’s diploma in health and social care featured on the list, but diplomas from other awarding organisations did not. Engineering BTECs were included, despite most engineering T-levels featuring in waves 3 and 4. Some clarity on that point would be very welcome.
Fundamentally, there is no student, provider or employer input into the overlap process. The reapproval process is expected to make its first announcement in September, so I urge the Minister to ensure the same failures are not replicated. As all BTEC qualifications must go through that process, it must be transparent, and decision making must not be the sole preserve of Whitehall and external consultants. As a bare minimum, the public—especially hard-working students—expect the Government to be open and clear about their plans. Not doing so severely damages trust in the Government to do the right thing and the credibility of the policy, so the Government must go further than simply delaying the defunding of BTECs by 12 months and making vague commitments to remove only a small proportion of them. They should rethink their plan and guarantee that funding will not be removed unless an impartial, evidence-based assessment has concluded that a qualification is not valued by students, universities or employers. Reckless policymaking that could be disastrous for social mobility and the economy must not take place without hard supporting evidence.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on opening this excellent debate.
Here we have another broken promise from the Conservative Government. For months, we Liberal Democrats have warned that the Government were planning to scrap BTECs, and our concerns were heightened during the passage of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022. We were given assurance after assurance, but here we are. It is interesting to see that as soon as some Conservative Members are free of the shackles of Government, they stand up and support BTECs—I wish there were more.
Rebecca Pow
Obviously I am speaking up for BTECs, but I also think the Government are going in absolutely the right direction in terms of skills and opportunities, recognising that they need to be aligned with business needs. I am sure the hon. Lady would agree with that.
Wera Hobhouse
I absolutely agree, but the Government are going to scrap BTECs, and the hon. Lady is opposing that. That is the only point I was making.
In July, the Department for Education introduced a twin-track system, for A-levels and T-levels, for young people at the age of 16, and the result is that funding for most BTEC qualifications will go. One hundred MPs and peers—including me—wrote to the Department for Education in support of the #ProtectStudentChoice campaign, a coalition of 21 organisations that represent students and staff in schools, colleges and universities, whose aim is to save BTECs. I thank the more than 100,000 petitioners, many of them from Bath College and Bath Spa University. We will continue to resist the move to defund BTECs.
It is the creative subjects in particular that will suffer. The Government intend to scrap those BTECs that they deem to overlap with A-levels and T-levels, but the process of assessing what is an overlap is not at all transparent. Who were the six assessors commissioned by the DFE to review the 2,000 or so qualifications? What were their backgrounds and experience? Where is the written evidence of their conclusions in order to defund 160 qualifications? Ofqual has quality-assured the qualifications for many years, and Ofsted, which oversees the quality of education, has at no point suggested that the qualifications lead to poor outcomes, so why will they go?
BTECs are invaluable in order to provide very different types of educational experiences. We have already heard a lot about that. They are popular with students and respected by employers and they provide a well-established route to higher education. They work, so what other than a narrow-minded ideological view has led the Government to scrap most of them and create less choice, especially for those learners who come from disadvantaged backgrounds? We Liberal Democrats acknowledge that from time to time, the range of qualifications needs to be reviewed, but not by closing viable educational pathways, especially for those students from poorer or minority backgrounds. Research from the Social Market Foundation found that 44% of white working-class students entered university with at least one BTEC, and so did 37% of black students.
Removing BTECs as an option risks students failing courses or picking courses that they are not engaged with. Students today need more, not less, support. They need more, not less, choice. They need choices and a Government who understand that by providing diverse pathways to qualifications, we will all end up with a much better, wider and diverse workforce. I hope the Government will think again.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I start by congratulating the 13,437 people who signed the petition entitled “Don’t scrap funding for BTEC Performing Arts”—I will come back to that in my speech. I also congratulate and place on the record my thanks to the more than 108,000 people who signed the #ProtectStudentChoice petition. Like other hon. Members in the debate, I want to refer on the record to the excellent work that my local college, Lewisham College, does in developing our young people and others so that they can go on and be successful in BTECs and continue their education further.
The securing of a Westminster Hall debate clearly shows the strength of feeling about the plans to defund BTECs. I am really glad to see people from all different political parties contributing to the debate and showing the strength of feeling on this issue. I am sure that they are all aware that young people in England can currently choose between three types of level 3 qualifications at the age of 16: academic qualifications such as A-levels; technical qualifications that lead to a specific occupation; and applied general qualifications, such as BTECs, which combine the development of practical skills with academic learning.
That all changed in July 2021 when the Department for Education confirmed plans to replace the three-route model with a two-route model, of A-levels and T-levels. As a result, funding for the majority of BTEC qualifications will be removed. It is disappointing that the Government reached that decision after the Wolf review said that BTECs are
“valuable in the labour market, and a familiar and acknowledged route into higher education”.
Although the Government insist that it is not a cut, it is.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend refers to the Government’s decision a year ago in July 2021, but that is also four Education Secretaries ago. Does she agree that we have Education Secretaries who pop into the job for a few months without any prior knowledge of the work, make massive decisions and disappear to do a different job, leaving those lifelong educationalists to pick up the pieces from the appalling work that they have done?
Vicky Foxcroft
My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. These are people’s lives, future and opportunities to get on in life. Quite often, they are lifelines. I speak from experience. After failing my GCSEs, as a working-class 16-year-old with a difficult background, it was a BTEC in performing arts—I am doing a bit of performing now—that got me back into education and, ultimately, to university. It made me excited about education again. A BTEC was my second chance.
Kate Green
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s ambition for a lifelong loan entitlement, so that adults can return to learning and achieve level 4 and beyond qualifications, will be compromised if it does not give people the widest possible range of opportunities to get the level 3 qualifications that will enable them to take advantage of that subsequent opportunity?
Vicky Foxcroft
My hon. Friend makes a good and important point about everybody having access to the education at the points and times in life that they need it. This Government’s decision to hastily remove BTEC funding quite simply makes a mockery of their claims to be levelling up in education. That is made worse on examining impact assessments of the decision, which highlight that 27% of BTEC students are deemed the most disadvantaged.
I am wholeheartedly opposed to the changes. Scrapping BTEC funding is simply the wrong call for several reasons, but one of the main reasons has to do with my life story of a young kid who many thought was never going to go on to achieve anything. I went to Accrington and Rossendale College and studied my BTEC in performing arts. That led me to believe that I could go on to university. That led me to believe that I could stand here one day as an MP. They offer life-changing opportunities for people.
Wera Hobhouse
It is fascinating to hear the hon. Lady’s story. Given her experience, does she agree that it is important that we provide education that engages young people who otherwise find academic subjects very difficult to engage with at first? They need to be moved towards an educational route that engages and enthuses them.
Vicky Foxcroft
I absolutely agree. Studying performing arts taught me that I loved history and geography and taught me about team working. There are so many other skills that are important in life.
BTECs are engines of social mobility. Research from the Social Market Foundation found that 44% of white working-class students who enter university studied at least one BTEC, and 37% of black students enter with only BTEC qualifications. It has already been said that research from the Nuffield Foundation found that a quarter of students now enter university with BTEC qualifications, and are likelier to be from disadvantaged backgrounds. The vast majority of BTEC students complete their studies successfully, with 60% graduating with at least a 2:1. I must confess I only got a 2:2. My question is simple: why do Ministers want to take this second chance away from young people and others up and down the country, when it is evidence based?
To end, I state once again how strongly I oppose the defunding of BTECs. We all know that the scrapping of BTECs will be disastrous for social mobility and for the economy. The Government should rethink their plans to scrap those valuable qualifications and guarantee that funding will not be removed from any BTEC unless an impartial, evidence-based assessment has concluded that students, universities or employers do not value it; we know that at the moment they do.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry, I called Fleur Anderson.
Munira Wilson
I am sorry, Sir Mark, I thought you said Munira Wilson. I misheard you; my apologies. I will sit down.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark.
I, too, thank my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), for leading this hugely important debate. I also thank all the 108,000 people who signed the petition and the #ProtectStudentChoice coalition for their unprecedented campaign, bringing together teachers, learners, parents and businesses from across the country to ask the Government to think again on the issue.
I welcome the new Minister to her place. She has on a plate the chance to change the opportunities of thousands of young people across the country by looking again at this policy. I hope that she is listening carefully and will take this action as her homework over the summer, but urgently, because once defunded, the BTECs will be hard to put back into place. It would be much better to stop, rethink and not defund the BTECs.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am conscious that our education system in Northern Ireland is different from the one here, so the debate is slightly different for us. Every time there is a major educational change, one to two years’ worth of children always pay the price for those changes to teaching and marking. Children cannot afford to be the losers, so does the hon. Lady share my concerns that the Minister and the Government must be cognisant of making any changes or deciding to go in a different direction?
Fleur Anderson
The hon. Member makes a good point: the changes will be detrimental. That is what teachers are telling us all—the MPs present today and many others. They have said that through the petition and they have told us. That is why I am in this Chamber—because the heads of my local institutions have told me of the detrimental damage if the change goes ahead.
I speak on behalf of colleges and sixth forms in Wandsworth, which are deeply concerned about the impact, especially on disadvantaged young people. The outcome will be perverse, the exact opposite of what the introduction of T-levels is supposed to do. No one present objects to T-levels; we object to taking away the three-track system.
One college, South Thames College, has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. The South Thames Colleges Group has 21,000 students across south London. I have talked to those at the group, and they have a large number of students who are taking business BTEC, but would not move to the T-level because, first, they cannot work part-time—a T-level is full-time. Many people have to work part-time to make ends meet for their family, and they will not be able to do so. Their families will say, “Sorry, you cannot carry on in education. We need you to work,” so they will have to drop being able to go to South Thames. I met several of those students, who say, “I have been able to come here to do a business BTEC and my siblings want to come, but my family says they probably won’t be able to if moving to a T-level, which is full-time.”
Secondly, the college will find it hard to find enough business placements in our area. As has been mentioned by other Members, there is a high number of SMEs—small businesses—in Wandsworth that will not be able to take on the business placements, especially as so many are struggling at the moment. Just this morning I met the head of the Wandsworth chamber of commerce, who said it will be very hard for businesses to be able to support T-levels. They really want to see more students doing business BTECs and other business qualifications, but the Government’s change will have the opposite effect and will be damaging to our local economy.
The third reason why students will find it difficult to stay in education is that there are barriers to higher-level entry for T-levels. T-levels are supposed to replace BTECs as the step into post-16 education, but BTECs do something that T-levels do not. Finally, those who have to stay on and do their GCSE maths, English and catch-up will have to spend a year doing that and then start the T-level, which puts them a year behind their peers. Their peers will be going ahead with their qualifications, and they will feel that they are behind. It will not be attractive to take up a T-level, having had to spend a whole year catching up with GCSEs. If they could do the BTEC alongside catching up with GCSEs, it would be far more attractive and would keep young people in education.
South Thames College notes that the Department for Education’s impact assessment for its consultation acknowledges that students from more disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to be taking the qualifications that the Department is planning to remove, and that it will need mitigation action to avoid causing them detriment. St Cecilia’s Church of England School in Southfields shares exactly the same concerns as those of South Thames College. It offers BTECs in business, travel and tourism, music tech and applied science. I have introduced South Thames College teachers to previous Ministers so that they could talk about their concerns, and I invite the Minister to meet those teachers in order to talk to the people who know what effect the change will have.
At St Cecilia’s, BTEC business attracts more pupils than other subject—about 25 a year. It is a popular subject at GCSE, and many then want to progress from the level 2 course to the level 3 course. It is the most valued and popular BTEC, accounting for about 25% of the school’s BTEC students, who cannot just switch from BTEC business to T-level business. The cuts would mean that a significant number of pupils in year 11 would not be able to progress to the sixth form. Worryingly, I am hearing that schools are saying they will not be able to offer anything except A-levels if we move to the proposed system. That is not what Ministers want to be the outcome of introducing T-levels, but it will be if there is no stop, reset and rethink.
Most sixth forms the size of St Cecilia’s will struggle to offer T-levels. They lack the space, the resource and the ability to merge the qualifications into a timetable in which other BTECs and A-levels are offered. St Cecilia’s says that it will not have the staff capacity to organise all the business placements that are needed, which would be another barrier. The school would be competing with other sixth forms and colleges in an already packed market in Wandsworth. If that is true in south London, how much more will it be true around the country? How much more will rural areas be affected? I just do not see how the needs of the new business T-level can be met. The head of St Cecilia’s says:
“Many pupils in Year 11 at St Cecilia’s opt to take a blended courses of BTEC alongside A levels, and so not being able to offer Business would reduce the rich diversity in our current Sixth Form too.”
If schools cannot offer T-levels for those reasons, they may switch to A-level business, but that would be a barrier to entry for pupils who prefer or need to study in a different way, for many reasons. St Cecilia’s leadership believes that defunding BTECs would go against the Government’s clear principle of placing curriculum development at the heart of school improvement. It is not trusting our student leaders, heads of education and teachers to make the best decisions, and it goes back to pupil choice as well. School leaders should be given the freedom to decide which courses are best suited to their cohorts, because they know them very well. That means a choice between BTECs, T-levels, A-levels and apprenticeships.
I would like to know what the Department is doing to address the concerns of institutions such as South Thames College and St Cecilia’s. Will the Minister come and meet them? I particularly want to know what mitigations are being proposed to help disadvantaged young people who will affected by the change. Has there been an evidence-based assessment? The Minister should look at the evidence base for making this huge decision. Will she commit to permitting a wider range of part-time work options to count as an industry placement? Will she relax restrictions on the number of placements that can make up the industry placement total?
Those are all important questions, but the most important question is whether she or her replacement will look again at this ill-thought-out and reckless policy. I implore her to rethink and not to defund BTECs. Colleges, sixth forms and students oppose it, and the losers will be the most disadvantaged.
In one fell swoop, this change will disproportionately cut educational opportunities for black and Asian students, for students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds, for students with learning disabilities, and for students with mental health challenges. It is not too late to look again at the policy and stop it. By doing that, the Minister will improve the educational opportunities of young people across the country.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark, particularly as you are a fellow north-west MP. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on bringing an important issue to the Chamber. I hope that the Minister will give us a reasonable response.
I place on record my gratitude to all teaching staff and support staff in my constituency and across the country and the world. The last two and a half years have been challenging for all of us, but teaching staff, support staff and people who work in the catering teams—everyone—have gone above and beyond. All hon. Members present will agree that we are very grateful to them for their significant contribution.
I have received correspondence from Aquinas College and Stockport College in my constituency. My constituency was one of the top 10 constituencies where the petition was signed, because some 639 constituents signed it. Nationally, 108,349 people signed it, which is a serious number. I often attend debates in Westminster Hall with just two or three hon. Members, but there are several MPs here from pretty much all the political parties, which reflects the subject’s importance.
Aquinas College in my constituency educates more than 2,200 young people every year, and its principal Danny Pearson has written to me on the matter. Stockport College is part of the Trafford College Group and educates more than 5,500 young people across several boroughs. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is a good friend and who made an intervention earlier, and I work closely with the Trafford College Group to ensure that those young people, and some older people such as me, have the opportunities that they need, that our economy needs and that Greater Manchester needs.
James Scott, the principal of Trafford College Group, wrote to me. I found his contribution quite serious and that is one reason I am here. Mr Pearson and Mr Scott both expressed serious concerns about the Government’s plans to remove funding for these qualifications. Lots of constituents have also contacted me in the last few days regarding this debate, so it is a serious issue.
The Government talk a lot about levelling up, but actions speak louder than words. We need to invest in our young people and our education system to make sure that people are given the opportunity for education, further education and skilled employment. We do not want a race to the bottom and zero-hours contracts; we want skilled, well-paid jobs that people can rely on so that they can have dignity and survive in this brutal cost of living crisis.
I will not repeat at length the comments of several hon. Members, but BTECs have made a significant contribution to the local economy and social mobility in the UK. Defunding them will leave many young people without a viable pathway, which will in turn have an impact on their progress to skilled employment or higher education.
Several hon. Members have made the point about the disproportionate impact that the cuts will have on disadvantaged young people. That point is covered in the Department for Education’s equality impact assessment, which the Government should not ignore—although I am not hopeful that the Government would not ignore their own equality impact assessment. I would welcome some comments from the Minister on that point.
I am a proud Labour MP and trade unionist. The National Education Union, the University and College Union, Unison and NASWUT all support the campaign, and as I and several hon. Members have said, almost 110,000 people signed the petition, so it is a serious campaign. I could repeat the points that have already been made by colleagues, but although the debate can last up to three hours—you look concerned, Sir Mark, but do not worry—I will not.
Social mobility is important, and we need investment. The cuts have not been properly thought out and will have a serious impact on Greater Manchester and the north-west. I hope that the Minister will take our comments on board and that her response will be useful to our constituents. Thank you for calling me to speak, Sir Mark.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Thank you. I taught for four years at a college in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, so I concur with a good amount of what he said. I call Munira Wilson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Thank you, Sir Mark; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Please forgive me for mishearing you earlier, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who made an excellent speech—probably far better than what I am about to say. I thank the Petitions Committee for proposing this debate, and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for opening it so ably.
Vocational and technical qualifications and training have for too long been incorrectly treated as inferior to academic qualifications. Right across our society—I include myself in this and hope that my own mindset is shifting now—we share an ingrained cultural bias in favour of academic achievement. Vocational skills, however, are more important than ever, as our country faces immense skills shortages across so many different sectors.
Although the Government’s new-found focus on vocational and technical training is welcome, the Liberal Democrats are opposed to the defunding—that essentially means scrapping—of the majority of BTECs. As many hon. Members have said, that will hurt the most disadvantaged students, and it narrows choice instead of widening opportunities for all. In so doing, we are kickstarting a damaging defunding process from 2024, before the T-level concept has even been properly proven and the new qualifications bedded in.
BTECs are immensely popular: more than a quarter of a million students take BTEC qualifications in any given year. They are disproportionately taken up by students from poorer backgrounds, ethnic minorities, and those with special educational needs and disabilities, as the DFE’s own impact assessment has confirmed. The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) have already cited the large percentage of white working-class and black students who, having taken BTECs, make it to university and achieve a 2:1, so perhaps I can instead quote Lord Baker, a former Conservative Education Secretary. During the passage of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, he described the plan to defund BTECs as “absolutely disgusting” because it would deny
“black, Asian, ethnic minority, disadvantaged and disabled students…hope and aspiration.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 2021; Vol. 814, c. 1789.]
The hon. Member for Battersea started her argument on the issue of choice—that is the crux of the matter, and there is cross-party agreement on it. Although there is always value in rationalising qualifications from time to time, forcing students to choose between A-levels and T-levels will narrow their choices at a time when we need them to have a range of ways to gain the transferable skills they need for their future careers. Some BTECs will remain—those that are equivalent to a single A-level, or a small number equivalent to two A-levels—but the majority will disappear.
I want to give an example from Esher Sixth Form College, which is not in my constituency but serves a number of my constituents. Students can study BTECs in subjects such as applied science, business or digital film and video production, in combination with complementary A-levels in subjects such as chemistry, computer science or graphic communication. However, BTECs also allow students to choose an unrelated A-level, enabling them to follow a passion.
The speech by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) was brilliant, inspiring and powerful because it was based on her personal story, and she talked about the passion that brought her back to education. A lot of students choose to mix and match, so that they can round out their expertise and experiences in foreign languages, maths or politics, which are subjects that benefit the economy and our young people. At a time when employers are crying out for our young people to enter the workforce with far broader skills and experience, surely we should be broadening the choice and allowing that mix-and-match approach rather than the Government trying to force everyone into those two straitjackets.
Scrapping BTECs will leave many students without a viable pathway at the age of 16. For some students who begin A-levels but do not enjoy them and struggle to cope, BTECs offer a vocational lifeline to supplement their academic qualifications. One constituent of mine, Lucas, started out studying three A-levels but switched to a BTEC in music in his first year in the sixth form. He went from contemplating leaving without any qualifications to achieving the highest grade in the county in his BTEC. He is now working as a teaching assistant supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities, and he is concerned about what scrapping BTECs and removing choice will mean for his pupils in the future.
In response to the petition, which is signed by 331 of my constituents from Twickenham, the Government argued that reform is necessary. As I have already said, I and my party fully agree that we must do much more to achieve parity between vocational and academic qualifications, but scrapping BTECs is not the answer. They have recently undergone a rigorous process of reform, they are popular with students, respected by employers and provide a well-established route to higher education or employment. The Government’s answer in terms of T-levels is welcome. Technical qualifications giving 16 to 19-year-olds a mixture of classroom and on-the-job experience, including a work placement, are really welcome but, as a number of hon. Members have touched on, there are problems, which I want to go into in more detail.
The Association of Colleges is concerned that the transition is being rushed, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. If there is to be this transition, it should take place over 10 years, ensuring that no qualifications are defunded without a full alternative being in place. On that point, I was talking to the principal of Richmond upon Thames College, in my constituency, just this morning. About one in 10 of his current students is studying a course that is due to be defunded and because the college is only part way towards introducing T-levels, for a number of reasons, there is no alternative. Future students would have no alternative if those courses were defunded from 2024 onwards.
It is premature to start to defund BTECs before T-levels are fully bedded in and understood. Indeed, during the passage of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, another Conservative former Education Minister, Lord Willetts, said that T-levels
“should succeed on their merits, not because viable alternatives are removed by government”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 2021; Vol. 814, c. 1793.]
That chimes with a lot of what we have heard today, and that point was made by a Conservative former Education Minister.
Ministers claim that students are confused by the current range of qualifications, but there is little evidence to support that. There are 39 subjects available across the entire sixth form college sector, with only nine available at Esher Sixth Form College, which I mentioned earlier. Ministers may be confused by that choice, but students certainly are not. Every year, about a third of Esher’s cohort studies at least one BTEC. The flexibility for students to be able to pull together their own study programme is essential as they try to work out what the right choices are for them for the future.
The T-levels that are being introduced are 25% practical and 75% academic, which, as some people have already alluded to, puts them out of reach of many students who might achieve lower grades in their GCSEs. They are often the people who really flourish on the BTEC pathway. The Association of Colleges has warned that T-levels will exclude the most disadvantaged students, particularly those who do not obtain a level 4 in maths and English GCSE. T-levels are rigorous and large qualifications, so, although the Government do not require maths and English for T-level entry, many colleges require it.
As hon. Members have alluded to, there is a real challenge with the industry placement that comes with T-levels. Trying to achieve 45 days is incredibly difficult. The Policy Exchange, a Conservative think-tank, says that only 8% of employers are currently offering a placement for the duration required for T-levels, and it is harder to find placements in some sectors than others. For instance, the digital industries often have teams working remotely, and we know that there is also a challenge between rural and suburban and urban areas.
The principal of Richmond upon Thames College told me this morning how difficult it is for him to get employers to engage with and provide work placements for vocational qualifications. That is in Greater London, in Twickenham, where there is a plethora of employers on the doorstep. Sadly, he is leaving Richmond upon Thames College later this year to go and head up Petroc, a college in Devon—I happened to visit Petroc with the new Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), during the by-election. One of the challenges facing the principal of Richmond upon Thames College as he goes to Petroc is that in a rural area—the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) already made this point—it is even harder to find employers to engage with T-levels, so he has his work cut out, but I wish him all the best.
We really need to see where those completing T-level courses go next. The Association of School and College Leaders has stated:
“We are…watching the number of T level students who end up in university with real interest. If T level students are going to end up in university in large numbers, and not in further technical training, then it brings into question why BTECs are being defunded. After all,”
that is
“the government’s main argument for scrapping BTECs in order to introduce T levels…The government can’t have it both ways.”
I completely agree with that point.
My final point is on defunding and process. There has been a real lack of transparency about which BTECs are being chosen first to be defunded. When questions have been asked about improving transparency, very little has been forthcoming. I see that as part of a wider trend. We were talking about BTECs today, but in terms of wider applied general qualifications, RSL Awards is based in my constituency, an awarding body for contemporary music and arts qualifications—it does the Rockschool qualification grading. Some of its qualifications got delisted for reasons it fails to understand. It tried to appeal, but has been unsuccessful—it has been told “case closed”.
RSL told me that—as with the BTEC point—more than a quarter of its students on some of its music qualification courses are from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. In classical music courses we just do not get that diversity; it tends to be much more white and middle class. Having a breadth of qualifications means that young people from a range of backgrounds are able to engage and secure qualifications. If the Government are going to continue down this route, we should at least have a bit more transparency about what is being defunded and when.
To conclude, we have heard clearly from all sides that it is very difficult to understand why the Government want to scrap what is a very popular qualification with both students and employers. They are trying to shoehorn young people into T-levels or A-levels at a time when they need more support than ever to realise and rebuild their futures. It is such a retrograde step and will damage the prospects of the most disadvantaged students. If the Government are serious about levelling up—they tell us they are, although we have not heard much about it from any of the Conservative leadership candidates yet—and truly mean it when they say they want to champion vocational training, I hope the new Minister, whom I welcome to her place, listens to the thousands of people who signed this petition, college leaders, teachers and experts in this field up and down the country, as well as many former education Ministers and Secretaries of State, some of whom I have quoted. They really must think again.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank all those who pushed for today’s debate—particularly the Sixth Form Colleges Association and the Association of Colleges, which have been particularly vocal in standing up to the anti-BTEC orthodoxy that threatens to take hold in ministerial offices at the Department for Education.
This has been a really excellent debate with valuable contributions from both sides of the House. I will reflect on a few of them before I get into my remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) presented the subject excellently and set up the debate. She said that a quarter of students who end up going to university do so through a BTEC. That is an important statistic, and Social Market Foundation research, which my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members raised, shows that 44% of white working-class students who attend university studied a BTEC. That point was repeated by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). It was one of the major themes of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) reflected on the fact that her daughter had done a BTEC. My son also went through the BTEC route and ended up going to university. I think it is safe to say that, without BTECs, he would not have got that university education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford spoke passionately and movingly about the difference that a BTEC made to her life and her life chances. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) spoke about the importance that these qualifications have, alongside T-levels, to employers in the west midlands.
The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) spoke about the important role that BTEC played in addressing the shortage of nurses in her community, and the need for those people to stay locally. Controversially, she spoke about the value of evidence-based assessment. I warn her that she needs to stop that kind of talk if she wants to get back into this Government, but a lot of us appreciated that point, which was well made.
The hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) spoke about the equalities impact assessment and made the incredibly important point that, if these qualifications disappear, many students simply will not have the routes that are currently available to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) spoke about neurodivergent students, and it is important that their needs are reflected. There is not a single one of us who is not regularly contacted at our constituency surgeries by the parents of neurodivergent students who are absolutely at their wits’ end. These courses enable such students to access the life opportunities that others take for granted, and they say that they really help them and matter to them, so we should take that incredibly seriously.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—I know from her time as the shadow Education Secretary that she is incredibly passionate about vocational students—said that the Government should end their obsession with saying that all students are either academic or vocational, and that they should recognise that some students want an approach that gives them a broad choice. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford paid tribute to her local college and said that this decision makes a mockery of levelling up. That is a really important point. It was obvious to anyone who watched the Conservative party leadership hustings last night that levelling up seems to have disappeared entirely from the lexicon of the potential Conservative leaders. It may be that they have decided to distance themselves from the mockery that my hon. Friend highlights. Many of us appreciated her contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) said that, once they are lost, these qualifications cannot be easily replaced, and she reflected on the fact that many of her local institutions had contacted her with their concern about the approach that the Government are taking. Of course, that should not surprise us, because when the Government conducted their own consultation back in September, they found that 86% of respondents disagreed with the approach that they were proposing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) said that his constituency was one of the top 10 constituencies in the country in terms of the number of people from it who signed the petition. I know that all of us have had large numbers of constituents contacting us about this issue, but it seems like many of us have a lot to do if we are to catch up with Stockport in terms of the level of interest in this issue.
The hon. Member for Twickenham reflected on the comments of Lord Baker in another place, who described the situation as absolutely disgusting. Lord Baker also described this move as
“an act of educational vandalism.”
That should be reflected upon.
It is important to recognise that the broad coalition that is spearheaded by the #ProtectStudentChoice coalition and backed up by organisations such as the Sixth Form Colleges Association, Youth Employment UK, MillionPlus, the Apprenticeship Network and an array of employers and trade unions has forced the Government to change their position. It is important that we all make the point that the Government could look again at what they propose, but it is also important to recognise that there has been a significant U-turn from where the Government were back in September last year. The Labour party and I are pleased to have played our part in that campaign, urging Ministers to rethink their decision to axe these courses.
It is also worth recalling the history of the Government’s shambolic and damaging approach to this question that we are considering today. It started with Ministers besmirching the reputation of BTECs. The Skills Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who was the one before the one before the Minister here today—well, it was 10 months ago, of course—described BTECs as poor-quality qualifications, when announcing that they would be scrapped to make way for T-levels.
In September 2021 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who was the brand-new Education Secretary at the time—he was the one before the one before this week’s one, who is the fourth Education Secretary we have had in the space of a year. It is said that a year in the life of a human being is like seven years in the life of an Education Secretary. That appears to be the case. We get this dazzling array of new Education Secretaries, so I can only imagine how busy the person responsible for the board at the Department of Education must be, as they constantly have to change the name and the picture up in reception that shows the Education Secretary.
Returning to the point that I was making, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, told us when he was Education Secretary that the Government would conduct a review. Many of us believe that the Government ought to have conducted the review before they sent out the message to students and lecturers that the qualification they were working towards was poor quality. Then the Government announced that they would defund 150 level 3 qualifications, which, in truth, is less than 10% of all of the level 3 qualifications out there.
We are pleased that the Government have performed something of a U-turn on this issue. In the final analysis, however, if they continue with their current policy, they will have scrapped less than 10% of all the level 3 qualifications currently on offer but, within that, they will have scrapped several courses that both employers and educationalists have real concern about. For example, the health and social care BTEC offers students a strong general introduction to the career opportunities available in the healthcare sector, and over 13,000 new students enrolled to study for it last year. It is important to reflect that if BTECs are scrapped, as the Government currently suggest they will be, a huge number of students will not have the breadth of options available to them.
There are a number of important questions for the Minister to respond to. Many colleges are deeply concerned that the amount of work experience required to replace even the limited number of BTECs being replaced cannot be found. The Government have already downgraded the work experience requirement in the early years of the T-level qualification. If it becomes apparent that providers in many areas are unable to find the amount of work experience required to deliver the number of T-levels, the Government will have a choice. Will the Government reduce the work experience demand further? Will they allow BTECs that do not have the work experience element to continue? Or will they accept that many students will be shut out of accessing a career for which there is a widespread skills shortage. Which one is it?
Secondly, if the Government’s view is that T-levels are more rigorous than BTECs, and they are scrapping BTECs, what is the plan for those students who previously would have been able to study a BTEC and will now not have a level 3 qualification at the age of 16 or 17? What assessment have the Government made of which students are likely to miss out, as has been reflected by so many contributors to the debate? Is it not the truth that it will mean more students from deprived communities, more white working-class boys and girls, more BAME students, and more students from rural and small-town communities will likely not have a level 3 qualification in place? If so, what plans are in place for those students?
Early feedback shows that T-levels require considerably more time studying and working. Many students, particularly those from deprived communities, are expected by their families to work alongside their studies. T-levels make that much more difficult, and that is being cited as a barrier to poorer students accessing them. What assessment has the Minister made of how that barrier could be addressed? Does it strengthen the case, in her view, for some sort of student subsidy, along the lines of the education maintenance allowance, to enable T-level students to afford to take up this opportunity? Does she accept that it was a huge mistake for the Government to denigrate a qualification that students were in the process of studying for before having completed their review? Given that so few courses are being replaced, will she apologise on behalf of the Government to the students, their lecturers and the employers, whose achievements the Government have belittled?
Finally, I have met many students studying T-levels. Although it varies from coast to coast, many clearly see them as a route to university. T-levels were initially envisaged as a route towards work. Does the Government accept that for many students that will not be the path they pursue? On that basis, is it still sensible for T-levels to be so narrowly focused on a single discipline? Should the Government not recognise that a broader qualification would allow students to learn which is the correct path for them from a position of knowledge?
The Labour party welcomed the introduction of T-levels. We want them to be a success and we hope that a future Labour Government will address the current flaws within them. I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to think again about the decision. We know that they will come back in September. There are a number of popular courses where educationalists and students tell us it would be deeply damaging if they were abolished. We want to ensure that our system of post-16 vocational and technical education is fit for purpose. Every MP in this debate, alongside the organisations championing the #ProtectStudentChoice campaign, want this too. Let the Government pause and put this decision on hold, and ensure that we have an evidence-based approach to its replacement. Let us not lose the qualifications that have real value to both employers and students.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Just before I call the Minister, I declare an interest. I left school at 16 and eventually got to higher education through vocational qualifications. I have the privilege of sitting here today because of that. The Minister has been extremely patient, listening for nearly two hours to the contributions. I am quite sympathetic to the position she is in, but I am sure that she will handle it well.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for opening this important debate, and every hon. Member who has taken part. A number of important questions have been raised, and I hope to cover many of them in my speech, so do bear with me—I have tons of notes here.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss my Department’s plans for the reform of level 3 qualifications, including how BTECs will fit into the future landscape alongside A-levels and T-levels. The introduction of T-levels is critical to driving up productivity and supporting social mobility. Based on the same standards as apprenticeships, T-levels have been co-designed with employers and draw on the very best examples of international practice. They will raise the quality and prestige of the technical offer in this country, ensuring that young people develop knowledge and skills that hold genuine labour market currency. It is this model that makes T-levels special, and it is the reason why we want them to be the qualifications of choice for 16 to 19-year-olds, alongside A-levels.
We have put significant investment into T-levels, as well as support for the sector, to help providers and employers prepare for them. We are confident that they will be a success and we will continue to carefully assess the progress of our reforms to ensure that no student or employer is left without access to the technical qualifications they need. There are now 10 T-levels available at over 100 providers across the country. By 2023, all T-levels will be available, and around 400 providers have signed up to deliver them.
We are introducing T-levels gradually to ensure quality from the start. Our confidence in their success is reinforced by the significant levels of investment and support that we have in place. We have made £400 million in capital funding available to support delivery since 2020, ensuring that young people can learn in world-class facilities and with industry-standard equipment. We have also put in place substantial support for schools, colleges and employers to help them deliver high-quality industry placements—I will cover this later, because I know that a few people were concerned about the placements—for all T-levels on a national scale.
We have supported providers in building capacity and networks with employers through the capacity and delivery fund, including through investing over £200 million since 2018-19. We want T-levels to deliver great outcomes for learners—I am sure that everybody in this room wants that—so we are committed to ensuring that teachers and leaders have the support they need to deliver them well.
In the two years to March 2020, we invested up to £20 million to help providers prepare for the delivery of T-levels, and to help teachers and leaders prepare for change. That included £8 million for the new T-level professional development offer, led by the Education and Training Foundation. We invested a further £15 million in 2020-21 and we have committed over £15 million in 2021-22 to continue this offer. Since its launch in 2019, almost 8,500 individuals and FE providers have benefited from T-level professional development programmes to help update their knowledge and skills, for first teaching T-levels in September 2020 and beyond. We will continue to publish regular updates and evidence as part of our annual T-level action plans, which can be found on the Government website.
On Thursday I met Leeds City College students and tutors—it was my first visit in this post. There was great enthusiasm for T-levels and for our apprenticeship programme. It was wonderful to see that the majority of the students I spoke to have already secured permanent employment in the sector that they studied in, which is an important move forward. We read about students securing permanent job roles at the companies that they did their T-level placements with, and other students securing apprenticeships. Employers congratulated existing students and looked forward to the next generation of T-level students starting their placements.
However, these essential reforms will have their full benefit only if we simultaneously address the complexities and variable quality of the broader qualifications system. Therefore, to support the introduction of T-levels, we are reviewing the qualification that sits alongside A-levels and T-levels to ensure that every funded qualification has a clear purpose, is high quality and will lead to good outcomes for students.
Successive reviews, including the Wolf and Sainsbury reviews, which have been touched on today, have found that the current qualifications system is overly complex and does not serve students or employers well. Through our reforms, we want every student to have confidence that every qualification on offer is high quality, to be able to easily understand what skills and knowledge that qualification will provide and, importantly, where that qualification will take them.
Our reforms are being made in three stages. First, we will remove the funding approval for qualifications with low or no enrolments. Secondly, we will remove the funding approval for qualifications that overlap with T-levels. Finally, we will reform the remaining qualifications—I will go into further detail on that in a moment. As part of securing early progress in the review, we confirmed that we would remove funding approval from qualifications that have had fewer than 100 publicly funded enrolments in a three-year period. Through this “low and no” process, we have confirmed that around 5,500 qualifications at level 3 have low or no enrolments, and will therefore have funding removed by August 2022.
The next phase of our reforms is to remove funding approval for qualifications that overlap with T-levels for 16 to 19-year-olds, which will reduce the complexities for learners and employers. By “overlap”, we mean that the qualification is technical, that the outcome achieved by the young person is similar to that set out in a standard covered by a T-level, and that it aims to take a student to employment in the same occupational area. Just as T-levels are being introduced in phases, we are also taking a phased approach to removing funding approval from technical qualifications that overlap with T-levels. This provision lists qualifications overlapping with wave 1 and wave 2 T-levels, and includes only 160 qualifications of over 2,000 qualifications available at the time. We will publish the final list of qualifications that will have public funding withdrawn in September 2022.
We have listened carefully to concerns about the reform timetable and have built in an extra year so that public funding approval is not withdrawn from overlapping qualifications until 2024, to help ensure that providers are ready. That means qualifications that overlap with T-levels will not have funding approval removed until the relevant T-level has been available to all providers for at least a year. It is important that there are no gaps in provision, and that we retain the qualifications needed to support progression into occupations that are not covered by T-levels.
Our final reform—our policy statement on level 3 qualifications—was published in July last year. It set out the Government’s decision on the types of academic and technical qualifications that will be necessary alongside A-levels and T-levels at level 3. On the academic side, we are absolutely clear that students will be able to take applied general style qualifications, including BTECs, alongside A-levels as part of a mixed programme where they meet our new quality and necessity criteria. That could include areas with a practical or occupational focus, such as health and social care—that has been mentioned—or STEM subjects, such as engineering, applied science and IT.
We will also fund large academic qualifications that would typically make up a student’s full programme of study areas where there are no A-levels and no equivalent T-level. It can also include areas that are less served by A-levels, such as performing arts, creative arts or sports science, where they give access to HE courses with high levels of practical content.
I want to ask the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) if we are the same person? We have a similar background: I too am a working-class girl who studied a BTEC national—although mine was in business and finance—and I also have a background in performing arts. It is evident that the Labour party is not the only broad church; the party of government is too. As a mature student I went on to study economics at the Open University, and international relations at the University of Lincoln while I was a parliamentary candidate—I know what it is like for someone to juggle things and try to pay their way at the same time.
Kate Green
I listened carefully to the Minister as she described the new landscape and how she sees it fitting together. She said a few moments ago that there was confusion about the range of qualifications that had been on offer. Listening to her just now, I have to say that I am still pretty confused about the landscape that we are moving into. What do the Government plan to do to communicate really clearly, to students, institutions and employers, how the new landscape will work?
Andrea Jenkyns
If the hon. Lady bears with me, I will come to that point; it was touched on earlier and I will answer it with regard to the pathways.
On a more technical route, we will fund two groups of technical qualifications alongside T-levels for 16 to 19-year-olds. The first will be qualifications in areas where there is not a T-level. The second will be specialist qualifications that develop more specialist skills and knowledge that could be acquired through a T-level alone, helping to protect the skills supply in more specialist industries and adding value to the T-level offer. Adults will be able to study a broader range of technical qualifications than 16 to 19-year-olds, which takes into account prior learning and experience. That includes technical qualifications that allow entry into occupations that are already served by T-levels.
I hope that has made it clear that we are not creating a binary system. Our aim is to ensure that students can choose from a variety of high-quality options, which I will go into. That is why it is important that we reform the system, to ensure that all qualifications approved for funding alongside A-levels and T-levels are high quality, have a clear purpose and deliver great outcomes, which is the most important thing.
As the post-16 qualification review continues, a new funding approval process will confirm that all qualifications that we continue to fund alongside A-levels and T-levels are both necessary and high quality. Both Ofqual and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education will have a role in approving those qualifications, and they are currently consulting on their approaches at level 3.
We are unashamed about raising the quality of technical education in this country. Students will benefit from the reforms because they will take qualifications that are high quality and meet the needs of employers, putting them in a strong position to progress to further study or skilled employment. Where students need more support to achieve a level 3 qualification in the future, we are working with providers to provide high-quality routes to further study. We have introduced a T-level transition programme to support learners in progressing to T-levels. We are also piloting an academic progression programme to test whether there is a gap in provision, which supports students to progress to and achieve high-quality level 3 academic qualifications in future.
We are determined to act so that all young people can learn about the exciting, high-quality opportunities that technical education and apprenticeships can offer. Through the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, we have strengthened the law so that all pupils have the opportunity for six encounters with providers of technical education qualifications and apprenticeships as they progress through school in years 8 to 13. For the first time, we are introducing parameters around the duration and content of those encounters, so that we can ensure that they are of high quality. The new requirements will strengthen the original provider access legislation—the Baker clause.
We will continue to gather evidence to ensure that our reforms across both technical and academic qualifications are working as intended. In particular, the unit for future skills, as announced in the levelling-up White Paper, will ensure that across Government we are collecting and making available the best possible information to show whether courses are delivering the outcome that we want. That will help give students the best possible opportunity to get high-skilled jobs in local areas.
Employers will benefit from our reforms, which place them at the heart of the system and will ensure that technical qualifications are genuinely grounded in the needs of the workplace. The Construction Industry Training Board has said that the reforms to technical education are a great opportunity to put things right that industry should seize. We will also strengthen and clarify progression routes for academic qualifications, to ensure that every funded qualification has a clear purpose—that is vital—is of high quality and could lead to good outcomes.
I will now touch on some of the questions that were raised across the Chamber.
Fleur Anderson
The educational plans that the Minister has described are exactly the plans that the petitioners are concerned about. Has the debate given her pause for thought about going ahead with the reforms and then assessing the outcomes—as she has just described—rather than waiting and looking again at the reforms before they are cut, because then it will be too late? We will simply not know how many people are not doing the courses, rather than assessing the people who are doing the courses and their educational outcomes. Has the debate given her pause for thought about the plans that she has just outlined?
Andrea Jenkyns
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. We are consulting vigorously, and I was actually going to bring in her points here. She mentioned colleges in her area. I happily meet colleges, and that goes for colleges represented across the Chamber. My ears are open to this, because it is something I am passionate about. Social mobility is a big thing for me. Coming from a regular background, I want to ensure that every child has a great start in life, so my door is open.
I was asked about creating a barrier for disadvantaged and BAME students. We are not withdrawing funding approval from all BTECs and other applied general qualifications. We will continue to fund BTECs and applied general-type qualifications as part of a mixed programme where there is need and where they meet new criteria for quality and necessity. Students who take qualifications that are more likely to be replaced have the most to gain from the changes, because in future they will take qualifications that are of a higher quality, putting them in a stronger position to progress to further skills or skilled employment. The most important outcome is that they have a decent start in life and good-quality jobs.
Mr Perkins
The Minister’s point somewhat misses the tenor of the debate so far. She is hearing that a lot of students from more deprived communities will not even get on to a course because of its make-up or because it will be full time, meaning that they will be unable to afford to do the course. Simply saying that they might have better opportunities when they complete a course does not take into account the fact that lots of them will not even get on to a course in the first place. I hope the Minister will look into that when she does her review.
Andrea Jenkyns
As I said, I am a woman who juggles and I know what it is like to have to pay my own way. Coming from a family who were not affluent, I had to work to pay my way at the same time as I did my BTEC.
Mr Perkins
The Minister would not have been able to do that if it had been a T-level. She would not have had the time.
Andrea Jenkyns
Not necessarily, but I will take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board.
T-levels will equip more young people with the skills, knowledge and experience to access skilled employment or further technical study, including higher education in related technical areas. We want as many young people as possible to benefit, which is why we have focused on supporting access. That includes introducing a T-levels transition programme and flexibilities for SEND students, and removing the English and maths exit requirements.
I was asked about students who have dyslexia and their frustration about taking exams. That is already covered in the Equality Act 2010; it must be considered whether a student will need reasonable adjustments, which can include being given 25% extra time when sitting exams.
There was a question about Oxbridge not accepting T-levels. Oxford’s admissions office says that BTECs are unlikely to be suitable for its courses unless taken alongside A-levels.
Vicky Foxcroft
I was looking at Oxford’s website today. It says that the university will be accepting BTECs and will not be accepting T-level subjects. I want to make sure that the Minister is absolutely accurate in what she is saying.
Andrea Jenkyns
If the hon. Lady had let me finish rather than jumping in, she would have heard the full context. First, Oxford’s admissions office says that BTECs are unlikely to be suitable for the university’s courses unless taken with side A-levels, as it says on the website. Secondly, we are continuing to engage with Oxford and Cambridge on accepting T-levels, so watch this space.
There were some questions about different pathways and what sorts of qualifications young people will be able to take, other than T-levels and A-levels. On the academic route, students are able to take qualifications similar to the current applied generals in mixed-study programmes with A-levels where they complement the skills and knowledge in A-levels, and where they enhance students’ opportunities for progression to further study in related fields of HE. That could include areas with a practical or occupational focus, such as health and social care, STEM and subjects such as engineering, applied science and IT.
We will also fund large academic qualifications that would typically make up a student’s full programme of study in areas where there are no A-levels and no equivalent T-levels. That could include areas that are less well served by A-levels, such as performing arts, creative arts and sports science, for access to HE courses with higher levels of practical content. We will also continue to fund the international baccalaureate diploma and access to the HE diploma for adults.
Wera Hobhouse
I have spoken at length, and for a long time, to Bath Spa University, which teaches a lot of creative subjects. What reassurance can the Minister give my university, Bath Spa, about the creative BTECs that are going to be scrapped?
Andrea Jenkyns
As I have already said, where a course is not covered by a T-level or A-level—I mentioned performing arts, creative arts and sports science—the option is available.
We will fund two groups of technical qualifications alongside T-levels for 16 to 19-year-olds. The first will be qualifications in areas where there is no T-level. The second will be specialist qualifications that develop more specialist skills and knowledge than can be acquired through T-levels alone, helping to protect the skills supply in more specialist industries, and adding value to the T-level.
Adults will be able to study a broader range of technical qualifications than 16 to 19-year-olds, which takes account of prior learning experience. Those include technical qualifications that allow entry into occupations that are already served by T-levels, such as data technician or senior production chef.
On the pathway, we have made it clear that students will be able to take BTECs and applied general qualifications alongside A-levels as part of a mixed programme. Our impact assessment recognises that students who take qualifications that are more likely to be defunded have the most to gain from these changes.
There were questions about overlap, and about students who have already signed up for courses. All qualifications on the final overlap will be funded until the current students have completed their studies.
There was also a question about work placements, which is a valid one. We have put in place substantial support for schools, colleges and employers to help them deliver high-quality industry placements for all T-levels on a national scale. We are engaging directly with employers through the Department’s employer engagement team to develop a pipeline of industry placements, and we are providing an extensive programme of focused support to help ensure employers and providers are able to deliver placements.
We have a national campaign in place to raise the profile of T-levels to an employer audience, and we have established a network of T-level employer ambassadors to engage with others in their industries on T-levels and placements. We have also implemented different delivery models to ensure placements can be delivered by employers across all industries and all locations.
Marsha De Cordova
It is right that the Minister is doing all that engagement with employers and so forth, but what about the students who will not be able to take up work placements, given their other commitments? This is one of the advantages of studying a BTEC. That 45-day commitment might not be possible, particularly for mature students—possibly like the Minister herself.
Andrea Jenkyns
If anything, we could flip that on its head, because this is a unique selling point. In these work placements, students will gain the soft skills needed in employment, and valuable experience to build up their CVs, which can help secure them future employment.
We have invested over £200 million since 2018-19 through the capacity and delivery fund to support providers in building capacity and networks with employers. We will continue to monitor the delivery of placements and work closely with providers and employers to identify what support they will need to deliver high-quality placements.
Mr Perkins
I am grateful to the Minister for laying out what the Government are doing, but there are not enough work placements for the small number of people doing T-levels at this stage—that is why the Government have downgraded them—much less for the sort of expansion she is talking about. We hear what the Government are doing about it, but the question I asked her is: in the event that they cannot get enough work placements, what are the Government going to do?
Andrea Jenkyns
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. I am more confident than he is that we will get these placements.
Andrea Jenkyns
No, but I have seen at first hand what the Department is doing with employer engagement, so watch this space. The shadow Minister can come back to me if it is to the contrary, but we are finding—the evidence is showing—that more and more employers are signing up for this.
On the question about our new Prime Minister, the reforms were mentioned in our manifesto. It said:
“Our reforms and investment in education and skills mean more children are leaving school better equipped for working life and there are more high quality apprenticeships.”
On the evidence base, the impact assessment was published alongside the level 3 Government consultation response in July last year, as I have already mentioned, and it is on the Government website. However, the case for change, providing evidence of the need for reform and for T-levels, was published in July 2016, and the document about streamlining qualifications at level 3 was published in March 2019.
We have an opportunity to put things right that industry can seize on. We can also strengthen and clarify progression routes for academic qualifications, as I have already said. I would like to thank all colleagues, from across the House—
Navendu Mishra
On the Minister’s point about putting things right, I wonder whether she will comment on this Government scrapping education maintenance allowance in 2010, I believe. They have not replaced it. That fits in with the theme of defunding education. Will the Minister comment? The data pointed out that because that £30 allocation was scrapped, fewer young people went into further education.
Andrea Jenkyns
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I think he will also find that more people from disadvantaged backgrounds are going into education than ever before.
Munira Wilson
I had a problem with mishearing before and I may have misheard again, but I do not think I have heard the Minister mention the word “choice” once. The central argument made by all sides in this debate is about the reduction of choice. We have heard for many years from Conservative Ministers and different Conservative Governments that choice is fundamental to their philosophy, yet here they seem to be reducing choice, and that will come at the cost of the most disadvantaged. Yes, a few BTECs will remain, but the vast majority of pupils will be forced into A-levels or T-levels or just to go straight into the workplace with very few qualifications. Please will the Minister address that point—how the Government are decimating choice by defunding BTECs in this way?
Andrea Jenkyns
I completely disagree. To me, the most important thing is outcome. There is choice there. We have said that if people—[Interruption.] Let me finish, thank you. There is choice. Look at apprenticeships. To me, the most important thing is the outcome, as I have said. If people can have better quality and higher paying jobs, that is a better start in life than taking courses that do not have the same outcomes.
I am going to conclude. I thank all colleagues, from across the House, for their contributions today. It has been a real pleasure to discuss the importance of developing our skills system. Transforming post-16 education and skills is at the heart of our plan to build back better and level up the country. We are ensuring that students everywhere have access to the qualifications that will give them the skills to succeed. T-levels are a critical step in the quality of the technical offer. They have been co-designed with more than 250 leading employers and are based on the best international examples of technical education. But these reforms will have their full benefit only if we streamline and address the complexities and variable quality of the broader level 3 qualification.
As a former BTEC student myself, I understand the benefits of technical education. [Interruption.] I will continue. I want to reassure everyone across the House that we are not withdrawing funding for all BTECs. Students will be able to take BTECs and applied general qualifications alongside A-levels, as part of a mixed programme, where those qualifications meet the new quality and other criteria. We want every student to have confidence that every qualification on offer is high quality—that, rather than choice, is so important: high quality, which will lead them into jobs—and to understand what skills and knowledge—[Interruption.]
Andrea Jenkyns
Thank you, Sir Mark. We want students to understand what skills and knowledge a qualification will provide them and where it will take them, and our reforms will deliver that.
Marsha De Cordova
I thank every Member who spoke. We heard incredible speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), and the hon. Members for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), and many other Members made powerful interventions.
The petition, which was signed by more than 100,000 people, is about preserving and protecting student choice, and unfortunately I do not believe the Minister addressed that in her response. The proposal will cut funding and reduce choice for the young people we say—well, many of us say—we want to ensure have choice and opportunity.
We heard about the transformative impact that BTECs can have on lives and vocational training—including for you, Sir Mark, among many others. Nobody is saying that T-levels are not the way to go, but students need options and choices, and the Minister did not acknowledge that.
I hope the Minister recognises the strength of feeling across the House. This is not party political: Members from all parties spoke about the difficulties that students from disadvantaged backgrounds—particularly those with special educational needs or a disability, and those from ethnic minority backgrounds—will face. I do not believe the Minister fully addressed how the new qualifications will support disabled students. If she did cover that, I ask that she writes to update me, but I do not believe that those points were addressed.
We have to keep pressing the Government on this issue. I hope that there will be transparency, and that they will involve campaign leaders and organisations, trade unions and student bodies in their review of the new T-levels. At the end of the day, although the Minister studied BTECs herself, I am just not sure she fully gets it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 592642, relating to BTEC qualifications.
Written Statements
AI: Pro-Innovation Approach to Regulation
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)
The Government are today publishing a paper setting out their emerging pro-innovation approach to regulating artificial intelligence. The UK can provide clarity and confidence to our AI ecosystem as well as ensuring the public and consumers are protected.
At the heart of our approach is a steadfast commitment to ensuring the UK is a place where AI companies can innovate, grow, and flourish. In areas from transport to healthcare, our AI ecosystem is driving forward new research, scientific breakthroughs, and growth across the nation. This policy paper seeks to shape the transformational effects of this critical technology: to unleash growth and innovation while safeguarding our fundamental values and keeping people safe.
The success of our AI sector is in no small part due to the UK’s reputation for high-quality regulation and the rule of law. However, as AI continues to develop, a transparent, clear, and coherent regulatory regime must develop with it. Government believe that a pro-innovation approach is needed to create clarity for businesses and investors, while also taking proportionate steps to address existing risks posed by AI and standing prepared to identify and mitigate new risks as they emerge.
This policy paper sets out the building blocks of a regulatory framework that is coherent but flexible and can apply to AI’s vast range of uses across different industries. It will support our regulators in addressing new challenges in a way that is proportionate, supports innovation and drives growth. This pro-innovation, pro-growth ethos will continue to inform policy development as we develop and refine the approach set out in this paper.
It is essential that we get this approach right, and I look forward to hearing views from the House on our proposals. We will also be seeking the views of AI experts across business, civil society, academia and beyond, as we work towards the publication of a full AI governance White Paper later in the year.
A copy of the paper will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS212]
Loot Boxes in Video Games
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)
The Government response to the call for evidence on loot boxes in video games has been published on www.gov.uk.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the UK is one of the safest places to be online, and this includes video games. We want all players, especially children and vulnerable people, to have the tools and information they need to enjoy games safely.
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) launched a call for evidence on loot boxes in video games in September 2020, in light of concerns about the potential for loot boxes to cause harm.
The call for evidence received over 32,000 responses to a player survey, and 50 submissions from organisations and individuals. We are thankful to the organisations and individuals, including players and parents, who responded to the call for evidence. In addition, the Government commissioned an independent rapid evidence assessment of academic literature on loot boxes, which was conducted by InGAME in 2021.
The Government response sets out findings from the call for evidence. The call for evidence identified a range of potential harms associated with the purchase of loot boxes, though a causal relationship is yet to be evidenced. This includes harms which have been associated with gambling, but also a range of other potential mental health, financial and problem gaming related harms. The evidence suggests that the risks of harm are likely to be higher for children.
In response to the findings from the call for evidence, the Government want to see improved protections for children and adults with regards to loot boxes, and better longer term research into the impacts of video games. The Government’s view is that:
purchases of loot boxes should be unavailable to all children and young people unless and until they are enabled by a parent or guardian;
all players, including children, young people and adults, should have access to and be aware of spending controls and transparent information to support safe and responsible gaming; and
better evidence and research, enabled by improved access to data, should be developed on the positive and negative impacts of video games to inform future policy making on loot boxes and video games more broadly.
DCMS will convene a technical working group to pursue enhanced industry-led solutions to mitigate the risk of harms for children and young people and adults from loot boxes in video games. In addition, we will work with academics and other partners to launch a video games research framework.
The Government response have been developed alongside our review of the Gambling Act. We will continue to keep the position set out in the Government response under review, considering any new and emerging evidence on loot boxes and harms, progress made in strengthening industry-led protections, and any specific proposals on how statutory protections could be enhanced. We will not hesitate to consider legislative options if we deem this necessary to protect children and adults.
I will be placing a copy of the Government response to the call for evidence in the Libraries of both Houses, and this response has been published on www.gov.uk. The rapid evidence assessment of academic literature on loot boxes, conducted by InGAME, has also been published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS211]
Data Protection and Digital Information
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
Today, the Government are introducing the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill in the House of Commons. The Bill is being introduced after the Government published their response to the “Data: A New Direction” consultation on 17 June 2022.
We now have the opportunity to seize the benefits of Brexit and transform the UK’s independent data laws. We have designed these new updates to our data protection framework so it works in our interests, protects our citizens, and unburdens our businesses.
Through this Bill we will realise the opportunities of responsible data use while maintaining the UK’s high data protection standards. The EU does not require countries to have the same rules to grant adequacy, so it is our belief that these reforms are compatible with maintaining a free flow of personal data from the European economic area.
Our Bill will improve people’s lives in many different ways. Firstly, we are increasing fines for nuisance calls and texts that break the rules. Telecoms network providers will also be required to notify the ICO when they have reasonable grounds for believing that unsolicited direct marketing is occurring on their networks.
Reforms to the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations will also remove the need for cookie banner pop ups for low risk activities, such as audience measurement, so it’s easier for businesses to use information to improve their services. The Bill will also pave the way for the removal of irritating banners for other types of cookies when browser-based or similar solutions are sufficiently developed.
The Bill will bring some everyday physical processes into the 21st century. It will be easier and more secure to use digital identities, which give people more choice and greater security when they want to prove things about themselves online or via apps instead of with physical documents. We will improve Government data sharing to improve public services for businesses, and the Bill will also update the way births and deaths are registered by clerks, moving from a paper-based system to an electronic register used by officials.
Our reforms to data protection laws will mean that UK scientists are no longer needlessly impeded by overcautious, unclear rules on how they can use people’s personal data. We will simplify the legal requirements around research, which will provide scientists the clarity and confidence they need to get on with life enhancing and life-saving research.
We are reducing the burdens on businesses that have held the UK back from the benefits of greater personal data use before now. By focusing on outcomes not box-ticking, we will unburden businesses from prescriptive requirements and empower them to protect personal data in the most proportionate and appropriate way. Our changes could create around £1 billion in business savings over 10 years.
The Bill will sustain and scale the UK’s approach to supporting international data flows by capitalising on its independent status to strike partnerships with some of the world’s fastest growing economies. Reforms will ensure that the mechanisms to transfer personal data internationally are secure and flexible to help British businesses grow.
The structure and objectives of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) will be modernised so that it remains an internationally renowned regulator, including increased investigatory powers to help it keep pace with changing practices. New strategic objectives will have an emphasis on economic growth and innovation, while ensuring the ICO continues to produce high-quality codes of practice, and has the flexibility to allocate its resources appropriately. The ICO will remain operationally independent while enabling the public and parliament to more effectively hold it to account through key performance indicators.
Reforms will also confirm that elected representatives may process general personal data where necessary for the purposes of democratic engagement activities. The intent is to allow MPs, councillors and political parties to undertake the democratic engagement activities they have done for decades—such as opinion surveys of local residents, and targeted letters to constituents—without the unnecessary complexity and confusion of the EU’s general data protection regulation. This builds on measures in the Data Protection Act 2018 which received broad cross-party support at the time.
The Bill will improve the efficiency of data protection for law enforcement and national security partners—encouraging better use of personal data where appropriate to help protect the public. Our proposed reforms create greater consistency between general, law enforcement and national security data processing. They will provide agencies with clarity on their obligations, boosting the confidence of the public on how their data is being used. These changes are vitally important for the work of our law enforcement and national security agencies who process personal data in the public interest, to prevent crime and safeguard national security.
New information standards for IT products and services supplied to the health and adult social care sector will ensure these are interoperable to make it easier for staff to access the information they need to help their patients.
The powers included in the Bill allow Government Departments to establish sector-based smart data schemes with supporting regulation, to ensure consumer and business protection. This is the secure and consented sharing of customer data with authorised third-party providers. These approved providers then use this data to deliver innovative services for the consumer or business, such as automatic bank account switching. This saves time, money and effort for customers who can more easily find and choose better-suited deals.
[HCWS210]
Vaccination Update
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
The covid-19 vaccination programme continues to protect the nation against the virus. As of 13 July 2022, over 149 million doses have been administered in the UK, including over 53.6 million first doses, over 50.2 million second doses and over 40 million third primary or booster doses in the UK. This represents uptake of 93.3% for the first dose, 87.4% for the second dose and 69.6% for the third primary and booster doses in the UK. During the spring campaign, data to 10 July shows that over 4 million over-75s received a further dose in England. Up to 10 July, over 85% of those eligible by the end of May had received a spring booster, ensuring that the most vulnerable in our society have recent protection.
On 15 July, Her Majesty’s Government accepted advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation regarding the covid-19 vaccination campaign for autumn 2022. The JCVI’s advice is that a covid-19 booster vaccine should be offered to:
Residents in a care home for older adults and staff working in care homes for older adults.
Frontline health and social care workers.
All adults aged 50 years and over.
Persons aged 5 to 49 years in a clinical risk group including pregnant women, as set out in the UK Health Security Agency’s Green Book Chapter 14a—Tables 3 and 4.
Persons aged 5 to 49 years who are household contacts of people with immunosuppression.
Persons aged 16 to 49 years who are carers, as set out in the UKHSA’s Green Book Chapter 14a—Table 3.
The final eligible groups are broader than those announced in the JCVI’s interim advice in May. The committee considered the recent epidemiology of the BA.4 and BA.5 waves, as well as the benefits of aligning the covid-19 programme with the flu vaccine rollout, concluding that expanding the offer would provide necessary protection to those at higher risk of severe illness and keep greater numbers of people out of hospital.
All eligible groups are encouraged to take up the vaccine when the time comes, even if they have had a spring booster, to give themselves the best possible protection against severe outcomes of covid-19 this winter.
In addition, the Department of Health and Social Care will once again be offering the free flu vaccine to additional groups. These groups will only be eligible once the most vulnerable, including previously announced pre-school and primary school children, those aged 65 years and over and those in clinical risk groups, have been offered the jab.
The additional groups set to be offered the free flu vaccine in England will be:
All adults aged 50 to 64 years.
Secondary school children in years 7, 8 and 9, who will be offered the vaccine in order of school year—starting with the youngest first.
The National Health Service will announce in due course when and how eligible groups will be able to book an appointment for their covid-19 autumn booster, and when people aged 50 to 64 years old who are not in a clinical risk group will be able to get their free flu jab.
[HCWS215]
Clandestine Entrant Civil Penalty Scheme: Public Consultation
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Simon Baynes)
The Government are today launching a consultation on reforming the clandestine entrant civil penalty scheme—part of the ambitious work to tackle illegal migration we are delivering through our new plan for immigration.
Illegal migration is facilitated by serious organised criminals exploiting people and profiting from human misery. The same criminal gangs and networks are also responsible for other illicit activity ranging from drug and firearms trafficking to modern slavery and serious violent crimes. A significant number of people, who arrive in the UK through concealment in vehicles by tourist and freight transport routes, have had their entry illegally facilitated by organised criminal gangs. Despite extensive work with overseas partners to strengthen our shared borders and enhance our strategic partnerships, this method of entry continues and endangers the lives of those involved. In many cases, this is a result of criminal gangs and opportunistic migrants taking advantage of unsecured or poorly secured vehicles to smuggle people or enter the UK illegally.
For these reasons, the UK operates a scheme to tackle illegal migration called the clandestine entrant civil penalty scheme. The scheme means that when clandestine entrants are found concealed in a vehicle, a penalty of up to £2,000 per entrant can be imposed on any responsible person connected to the vehicle in question, up to a maximum aggregate of £4,000 in total per clandestine entrant. A responsible person is defined as the owner, hirer or driver of the vehicle. The scheme applies to all vehicles, commercial and private, as well as anything that is designed to be towed or carried by a vehicle—such as trailers, caravans, containers etc. In circumstances where the driver is employed by the vehicle owner or hirer, such as an HGV, the employer is also liable for the driver’s penalty. The penalty level has not been changed for nearly 20 years.
During the financial year 2020-2021, there were 3,145 incidents where clandestine entrants were detected concealed in vehicles, despite the covid-19 pandemic causing a lower volume of traffic. This rose to 3,838 incidents during the financial year 2021-2022. The Government are therefore concerned that the scheme is not having enough of an effect, as drivers are not taking the steps required to secure vehicles, and clandestine entrants are continuing to use these routes to enter the UK.
It is for this reason that the Government committed to review and overhaul the scheme as part of its new plan for immigration. A public consultation on the new plan for immigration was held from 24 March to 6 May 2021. The Government then introduced changes to the scheme through the new Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
The changes under the 2022 Act include narrowing the statutory defences available to those who have carried a clandestine entrant. This means that where a clandestine entrant has been carried, it will no longer be a statutory defence to say that an effective system for preventing the carriage of clandestine entrants was in operation, and that person may still be issued with a penalty. However, if the person has complied with regulations to be issued by the Secretary of State, which will require them to take actions to secure their transporter, report unauthorised access and keep records to show they took these steps, this could mean the level of the penalty is reduced.
The 2022 Act also introduces a new civil penalty for failing to adequately secure a goods vehicle, regardless of whether a clandestine entrant has been found. The Secretary of State will also make regulations which set out what is meant by a goods vehicle being adequately secure and the required vehicle security standards that will determine whether liability arises under this new offence. These may include vehicle checks, reporting unauthorised access and retaining records to demonstrate steps taken.
Before any of these regulations can be made under the 2022 Act, the Secretary of State has a statutory duty to consult with such persons as she considers appropriate. The Government have also agreed to consult on the level of penalty for the new offence of failing to adequately secure a goods vehicle, with a view to bringing into operation a new level of penalty: code of practice.
The Secretary of State is now discharging these obligations through this consultation, which is designed to seek the views of all interested parties on these issues and others connected with the scheme. The consultation will run for eight weeks and will close on 12 September 2022.
Alongside the consultation, the Home Office will be running a series of engagement events to explore these issues in more detail. If you would like to join an engagement event, please email:
ClandestineEntrantCivilPenaltyConsuitation@homeoffice.gov.uk.
The closing date to express an interest in joining an engagement date is 19 August 2022.
We welcome your views and look forward to hearing from you.
A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and also made available on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS213]
Swift, Certain, Tough: New Consequences for Drug Possession
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Today, I am pleased to announce the publication of a White Paper, “Swift, Certain, Tough: new consequences for drug possession” and accompanying public consultation, which has been laid before the House (CP 723). It has also been published on gov.uk.
As set out in the 10-year drug strategy, published in December 2021, we are committed to exploring options for tackling so-called recreational drug use. This White Paper does just that and proposes new sanctions to deter people from illicit drug use and change attitudes. Fundamental to this new regime is that drug users face greater consequences than they do today. And while we want consequences to be tough, we also want them to be fair, meaningful, and appropriate.
The White Paper sets out a combination of proposals for legislation, as well as broader areas for reform on which we invite consideration. We propose a new escalatory three tier framework for drug possession offences which will apply to all drug users, except where users have a drug dependence where treatment is the most relevant intervention.
Three tiers
Where appropriate, those caught for a first-time drug possession offence will be placed in tier 1 and issued with a fixed penalty notice. This requires them to either attend a drugs awareness course (paid for by the individual), or, if they do not attend the course, to pay a financial penalty.
For those who do not change their behaviour and are caught for a second time they will progress to tier 2. In this tier, the offender would be offered a caution which would include, where proportionate, a period of mandatory drug testing alongside attendance at a further stage drugs awareness course.
Should an individual be caught for a third time, they move to tier 3 and we expect them to be charged with the relevant offence. To ensure the courts have the right powers to change behaviours of drug offenders, we propose introducing a new civil court order to enable a range of conditions to be imposed, including: (i) exclusion order; (ii) drug tagging; (iii) passport confiscation; or (iv) driving licence disqualification.
Progression through the tiers should always be linear. We would not expect an individual to start with a tier 2 or tier 3 intervention or indeed “jump” from tier 1 to tier 3. The escalatory framework gives individuals the opportunity to understand the harms of illicit drugs better and to reflect on their behaviour and the harm they are doing to themselves and to wider society. Should they nevertheless continue to offend, consequences will escalate.
Drug testing on arrest
Given our focus is on reducing drug demand, we must take any opportunity to reach individuals and provide the right interventions. Therefore, this White Paper also proposes some important changes to drug testing on arrest powers to ensure the police can drug test more individuals than today. Drug testing on arrest is not about further criminalising drug users, but about identifying those who use drugs where their drug use may be a causal factor in their criminal behaviour and intervening to help them to change their behaviour. To achieve this we are therefore proposing to:
1. Expand the types of drugs that can be tested for to include a wider range of class A drugs;
2. Expand the types of drugs that can be tested for to include drugs in other classifications where relevant, and in particular cannabis as the most widely used illicit drug;
3. Expand the number of “trigger offences” that can lead to drug testing on arrest.
The proposed legislative changes will apply to both drug testing on arrest and to drug testing on charge.
Consultation
Given many of the changes will require primary legislation, we believe the right approach is to publish a consultative White Paper. We will therefore open a formal consultation period on the document today for a period of 12 weeks. I would encourage parliamentary colleagues to review the document and the consultation, and to make relevant organisations in their areas aware. Consultation responses will be thoroughly analysed and taken into consideration before finalising any policy.
This White Paper represents a significant step in reducing overall drug use towards a historic 30-year low and shows we do not shy away from proposing new interventions to do this. Ultimately these sanctions are aiming to change behaviour and reduce demand for drugs. We want people to lead healthier lifestyles and we want them to stop putting money into the pockets of dangerous drug gangs who fuel violence in our communities.
We are utterly steadfast in our determination to grip this problem and, ultimately, turn the tide on illegal drugs.
[HCWS214]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, are we not glad we are in a nice, cool Room?
Before the Committee gets under way, I remind your Lordships that if there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn at the sound of the Division Bell and resume after 10 minutes.
Procurement Bill [HL]
Monday 18th July 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 View all Procurement Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-V Fifth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (14 Jul 2022)
Lord Lansley
Lord Lansley (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for the splendid way in which she addressed my amendments last week, for which I am most grateful.
(a) treat the supplier as an excluded supplier for the purpose of—(i) assessing tenders under section 18 (competitive award), or(ii) awarding a contract under section 40 or 42 (direct award), and(b) exclude the supplier from participating in, or progressing as part of, any competitive tendering procedure.”
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, this group seeks to deal with amendments relating to the process for excluding suppliers and with the debarment list. I recognise that there is considerable interest in this topic. Amendments relating to the grounds for the exclusion of suppliers will be dealt with separately in a later group. I look forward with interest to submissions from noble Lords, but there are a number of government amendments in this group.
Amendment 89 ensures that suppliers which gained an unavoidable unfair advantage through involvement in preliminary market engagement are excluded from the procurement in question.
Amendment 148 is consequential on Amendment 93, which was debated last week. Amendment 93 clarifies that the authority’s requirements and award criteria are two separate concepts.
Amendment 154 broadens the concept of an entity associated with the supplier for the purpose of the exclusion grounds. This concept covers entities which are being relied on to meet the conditions of participation and is expanded by this amendment to also cover entities which may not be involved in the delivery of the contract. An example would be a consortium member providing financial backing to the supplier in order to meet conditions of participation relating to financial capacity. This aligns the concept of associated entities with the existing concept in Clause 21. An exception is made in respect of exclusions for guarantors such as banks, where it would be inappropriate to consider the exclusion grounds.
Amendment 150 is the lead of 21 amendments which all serve to change the term “associated supplier” to “associated person” for the purposes of the exclusions regime. This is consequential on Amendment 154 because the entities being relied upon to meet the conditions of participation may not be involved in the actual delivery of the contract. It is therefore accurate to refer to them as “persons” rather than “suppliers”.
Amendments 151, 159 and 166 require contracting authorities to notify suppliers when they are considered to be excluded or excludable by virtue of an exclusion ground applying to an associated person or subcontractor. These amendments are linked to Amendments 168 and 171, which require ministerial consideration before a supplier is notified and given the opportunity to replace an associated supplier or subcontractor when they are considered by the contracting authority to be a threat to national security.
Amendment 162 requires contracting authorities to ask for details of intended subcontractors and to check whether any intended subcontractors are on the debarment list, as part of determining whether the supplier is excluded or excludable. Amendments 163, 164, 165 and 398 are consequential.
Amendment 169 corrects a drafting error which incorrectly described suppliers subject to the exclusion ground on national security as being “excluded” when they are in fact “excludable”. Amendment 170 is also a technical amendment.
Amendments 175, 182, and 414 clarify what it means to treat a supplier as an excluded supplier in relation to the award of a public contract. They make it clear that contracting authorities are required to disregard tenders from such suppliers and prevent such suppliers from participating in, or progressing as part of, any competitive tendering procedure.
Amendments 176 and 178 provide for the list of improper behaviour at subsection (4) of Clause 30 to be an exhaustive list. It is important to be clear on the circumstances in which a supplier has acted improperly, given that the consequences are exclusion. Amendment 339 removes financial and other resources of suppliers from the list of the matters that contracting authorities may have regard to in setting proportionate requirements for suppliers to provide particular evidence or information as to whether exclusion grounds apply and whether the circumstances giving rise to any application are likely to occur again. Proportionality is sufficiently and more appropriately achieved by having regard to the nature and complexity of the matters being assessed, which is also listed. This amendment aligns with the matters that contracting authorities must have regard to in considering whether a condition of participation is proportionate, as specified in Clause 21.
Amendment 349 is made at the request of Northern Ireland and provides that transferred Northern Ireland authorities should make notification of exclusion to a department in the Northern Ireland Executive that the authority considers most appropriate, rather than a Minister of the Crown. This is necessary to provide information to the relevant department, for example to consider a potential investigation of suppliers under Clause 57. Amendment 352 requires that a Minister of the Crown must consult with the Northern Ireland department that the Minister considers most appropriate —rather than any Northern Ireland department—before entering a supplier’s name on the debarment list or removing an entry from the debarment list following an application for removal under Clause 60.
Amendment 399 extends the circumstances in which there is an implied right for a contracting authority to terminate a contract where a subcontractor—which the supplier did not rely on to meet the conditions of participation—is an excluded or excludable supplier. The amendment includes circumstances where the authority checked the debarment list or asked for information about the subcontractor but did not know that the subcontractor was excluded or excludable prior to award.
Finally, Amendment 402 requires contracting authorities to seek the approval of a Minister of the Crown before terminating a contract on the basis of the discretionary exclusion ground of national security. This is necessary to align with the other circumstances in which ministerial approval must be sought before relying on this particular ground. I beg to move.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
In keeping with the obvious mood of the Committee, I actually do not want to say very much either on this particular group. The interest I had was in the amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox, in this group, on how excluded suppliers demonstrate their reliability following the application of an exclusion order, and the process of self-cleansing. I was particularly interested in what this process of self-cleansing means. I am presuming—from the Minister’s helpful introduction—that the company is excluded for X reason, and is told that in the notice that goes to an excludable supplier, and then it goes back to the Government and says, “We’ve undertaken the process of self-cleansing and therefore the problems that you highlighted with us are no longer applicable”. So, I wondered whether the Minister could say a little bit more about the process of self-cleansing, which was the element that I found a little bit vague, if I am honest, and goes with many of the problems we have: the Minister talks about a “proportionate response” from the Government, and those sorts of phrases, and again we get into the problem of definition.
The other point I will make concerns what the Minister rightly pointed out: Schedules 6 and 7 outline the grounds rather than the process. There are the mandatory grounds in Schedule 6 and the discretionary grounds in Schedule 7, both of which a contracting authority might think applies to it. On the grounds in these schedules, can the Minister give us an example of what the process or timescale will be and an example of how it would work? Presumably the Minister sends this to the contracting authority and says, for example, “We think you should be excluded because of this in Schedule 6”, and if the company says, “No, this isn’t the case”, a discussion takes place. It would be helpful for the Committee to understand this process.
Finally, can the Minister confirm that, as I read it, there is also an appeals process? If the Government decided that a firm or supplier should be excluded, am I right in saying that this decision could be appealed? If it is appealed, who is it appealed to—presumably not the same person who made the decision to exclude them in the first place? I am querying the independence of that appeal process and the amount of time that this would take. A little more detail would be useful on the matter of an “excluded supplier” and an “excludable supplier”.
I do not want to keep the Committee any longer on this group of amendments, because the Minister’s helpful outline clarified some of the points I would have made about why “person” changes to “supplier”. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my questions.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I think that in a test match that is called putting the spinner on early when the batsman is better at fending off fast bowling.
The noble Lord asked a number of questions, which I am not in a position to answer at this juncture. We believe that self-cleansing is an important process because exclusion is a risk-based measure as perceived; it is not a punishment. As such, suppliers should be encouraged to clean up their act and given the right to make the case that they addressed the risk of misconduct, or the other issues, occurring again. It is for contracting authorities to decide whether the evidence they have seen is sufficient to reassure themselves that the issues in question are unlikely to occur again. The noble Lord asked a further question about what happens should there be a difference of judgment. The formal position is that it is for the contracting authorities to decide whether self-cleansing has occurred.
It is not our intention to make the exclusion of suppliers more difficult for contracting authorities, because many noble Lords, on a number of subjects, have asked for the opportunity to exclude suppliers. The Bill seeks to ensure that all the relevant issues can be considered. We believe that suppliers will thereby be encouraged to take as much comprehensive action as possible to avoid recurrence if they seem to fall foul of these risks. I repeat: the decision must be made by the contracting authority, and the burden to present remedial evidence to avoid exclusion is on the supplier. The lack of remedial evidence—or if the remedial evidence is inadequate—may give the contracting authorities sufficient reason to conclude that the issues in question are likely to occur again. However, I will look very carefully at this flighted ball that the noble Lord has sent. We accept the need for guidance on self-cleansing to accompany the legislation, and can assure the noble Lord opposite that this will be published as part of the implementation package for the Bill.
I cannot ask the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, not to move his amendments, as he is not here, but I hope that is something of an answer to the noble Lord, who has amendments in this group.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is quite helpful. Further to that and to make sure I have understood, would an excluded or excludable supplier be put on a debarment list? I refer to Clause 61, which is titled “Debarment decisions: appeals”. Am I reading this right or have I got it wrong?
Lord True (Con)
We will come on to the details of debarment on a later group—on Clause 61, I believe. A supplier may certainly appeal against the decision of a Minister, who ultimately places the debarment list. On the process of self-cleansing, which we were talking about, the contracting authority, not the Government, undertakes exclusion. It will notify the supplier that a ground for exclusion applies; the supplier may then make representations and submit self-cleansing evidence, as I previously discussed. The contracting authority then weighs it up and decides on exclusion.
This is the further wrinkle that I had not answered in saying rather more words than the succinct selection I have been given, but it confirms what I was saying: the supplier may challenge, but through the courts under the remedies regime, if it disputes the contracting authority’s judgment on self-cleansing.
We will come on to debarment decisions and permanent exclusion on amendments after Clause 61, but certainly a supplier may appeal against a ministerial decision.
In moving government Amendment 89 in my name, I request that the other amendments are not moved.
“(1) If a contracting authority carries out preliminary market engagement, the authority must—(a) publish a preliminary market engagement notice before publishing a tender notice, or(b) provide reasons for not doing so in the tender notice.”
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, here I pay the penalty for the discussion we had before the Committee started: there are more government amendments that I must move in this group. I will beg to move a range of amendments today.
Government Amendments 90 and 91 make improvements to preliminary market engagement notices. Together they ensure that, where a contracting authority chooses not to publish a preliminary market engagement notice, a justification must be set out in any subsequent tender notice. I know this will be welcomed, particularly by small businesses, which often rely on early market engagement.
Government Amendment 277 makes provision for contract details notices. It removes a superfluous reference to contracts awarded under this part, which is unnecessary as the definition of a public contract in Clause 2 covers that which needs to be covered.
Government Amendments 278 to 281 correct a timing error in relation to the publication of a contract details notice for a light-touch contract. This will ensure that the contract details notice is published first, within 120 days of entering into the contract. The publication of the contract is required within 180 days of entering into it, allowing time for the contracting authority to make any necessary redactions before publication.
Government Amendments 282 to 286 are at the request of Northern Ireland and exclude transferred Northern Ireland authorities from the obligation to publish contracts above £2 million.
Government Amendment 287 is a minor drafting change, which better reflects the operation of the provisions.
Amendments 355, 356, 357 and 359 make changes to the requirements in Clauses 64 and 65 for contracting authorities to publish information about, respectively, compliance with the prompt payment obligation in Clause 63 and payments made under public contracts. Northern Ireland has chosen to derogate from both those requirements, so these amendments reflect that policy.
Government Amendment 358 makes it clear that the exemption for utilities in Clause 65(4)(a) applies to private utilities only. Government Amendment 403 clarifies that user-choice contracts which are directly awarded are not subject to the requirement to publish a contract termination notice.
Government Amendments 429 and 430 are technical amendments to Clause 79 to reflect consistent drafting practice and the fact that Northern Ireland has chosen to derogate from the below-threshold rules in Part 6 and so does not require the threshold-altering power in subsection (7).
Government Amendments 446 and 447 to Clause 84 also relate to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has chosen to derogate from the requirement for its contracting authorities to publish pipeline notices.
Government Amendment 457 inserts a new clause entitled “Data protection” after Clause 88. This is a now standard legislative provision that reiterates the need for those processing personal data under this Bill to comply with existing data protection legislation. As we discussed on an earlier group, I look forward to engagement with noble Lords opposite on issues of particular concern relating to processing and holding data. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendment 445 in this group. This amendment is concerned with the challenge facing charities seeking to obtain contracts from public authorities. The Bill is ambitious in its aim to simplify procurement rules, which is very welcome, but it is important that it is done in a way which does not make it more difficult for small businesses and particularly charities successfully to bid for contracts.
We know from past experience with current contracting rules and law that charities experience some barriers here. I hope that in our discussions on the Procurement Bill it will be recognised that a large proportion of the voluntary sector is pretty fundamental to the delivery of public services—indeed, in some cases the voluntary sector is the leading provider of such services. For example, according to research commissioned by DCMS, voluntary and charitable organisations and social enterprises won 69% of the total value of contracts awarded for homeless services between April 2016 and March 2020, and 66% of the total value of contracts to support victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse.
We know that the voluntary sector can produce outstanding results; we know about its ability to build trusting and long-term relationships with communities that are often excluded, its focus on prevention, its versatility and its agility. So I welcome the requirement for contracting authorities to publish pipeline notices—the Minister referred to this in relation to one of his amendments today—but, given the utility of such notices for smaller providers and the market diversity and improved services that could be cultivated by giving smaller providers a chance to prepare the bid, we want transparency to be prioritised in the requirements to publish pipeline notices; hence my amendment.
My Amendment 449 is slightly different but it none the less raises issues in relation to the way in which public authorities engage with the private sector—or the independent sector, depending on how you look at it. This amendment arises from concerns that public bodies are failing to act within the spirit if not the letter of the freedom of information legislation in relation to procurement contracts.
I just want to refer the Minister to an openDemocracy report, published last year, which looked at the operation of the Freedom of Information Act in 2020. It found that
“2020 was the worst year on record for Freedom of Information Act transparency … Official statistics published by the Cabinet Office show that just 41% of FOI requests to central government departments and agencies were granted in full in 2020—the lowest proportion since records began in 2005 … The Cabinet Office is blocking requests from MPs about its use of public money to conduct political research … Stonewalling, a brutally effective tactic for evading FOI, is increasingly prevalent … Government departments are cynically exploiting a legal loophole to deny timely access to information in the name of the ‘public interest’ … Government departments are failing to comply with a legal requirement to work constructively with requesters”.
The FoI Act was meant to be a safety net for members of the public so that there would be as much openness as possible. However, there are two obstacles to that happening. The first is the operational aspect of policing the Act through the Information Commissioner. The commissioner has been seriously affected by huge cost-cutting. Last November, Elizabeth Denham, the former commissioner, told the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee that the ICO’s resources were “40% less” than in 2010 while, at the same time, the number of requests had increased by one-third. In its most recent annual report, published in July 2021, the ICO noted that there had been a build-up of the caseload over the financial year.
The other obstacle to the public being able to find out what is going on is the subject of my amendment. One exemption in FoI legislation relates to commercial interests in Section 43(2). This is a qualified exemption subject to the public interest test. Its application ought to be straightforward but, unfortunately, it is used regularly to refuse information in often the most absurd situations. The outgoing commissioner said:
“The reality of the delivery of Government services involves so much of the private sector now. The scope of the Act does not … cover private sector businesses that are delivering public services. I think that is a huge challenge. I have seen statistics that say up to 30% of public services are delivered under private sector contracts, but those bodies are not subject to”
FoI legislation.
I am afraid that the NHS is a frequent offender when it comes to this. We know that, over the years, the Government and the NHS have looked to expand private sector involvement. There is a long-established trend of trying to outsource some NHS functions to private contractors and a recent trend to set up what I can only describe as tax-dodging subcos, as they are called, to avoid VAT payments and reduce staff’s terms and conditions. This is where public health bodies set up their own subsidiary companies and transfer staff over. Basically, they do it to get around VAT payments, but we have also seen them use it to reduce the terms and conditions of the staff who are so employed.
What is so objectionable is that trusts frequently refuse to disclose information about what they are doing. Decisions are made in secret. In one example, an FoI request went in for the business case. In the decision-making record, the request was turned down on the basis of commercial confidentiality. This happens up and down the country. Section 42(2) is also used to refuse to disclose information long after any commercial considerations have gone.
This is a serious issue. As members of the public, we have a right to know when the NHS outsources services. The FoI legislation was never envisaged as getting in the way of transparency in those cases. When you combine it with the enforcement problem that we have, in essence we are seeing the FoI legislation not being effective. I am not sure how hopeful I am, but I am ever hopeful that the Government will see the error of their ways in relation to FoI. It was set up with the best of intentions and its principles still stand today in terms of transparency, but the more we see the public sector using the private sector, the more FoI considerations ought to come into play.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 445, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I shall make a couple of points in addition to what he has said.
Clause 84 requires pipeline notices to be published where the contracting authority expects to pay more than £100 million under relevant contracts in the coming financial year. However, this will be required only for contracts with an estimated value of more than £2 million. This threshold will do very little to improve transparency or, indeed, preparedness and competitiveness for SMEs and charities. According to research by the Federation of Small Businesses, over the past three years almost half—48%—of public sector contracts applied for by SMEs were worth below £25,000 and nine in 10, or 89%, were worth below £100,000.
My second point is that the amendment merely requires contracting authorities to consider publishing a pipeline notice where this would be likely to enable a wider range of providers to participate, thus improving the quality and value for money of services tendered. This would surely be a useful, if relatively mild, way of promoting greater awareness of the importance of engaging more small businesses, charities and social enterprise in public contracts. It deserves support.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 445, which I was also pleased to sign. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made a very good case for why it would be so useful for charities and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, extended that. I wish to extend it further to reinforce the point that the importance of the pipeline notice is that it provides guidance for the authorities to take a risk that, in a sense, goes slightly beyond the principle that no one got fired for choosing IBM. If we are trying to get the best service, we must look for the right opportunities and the right people, not just in the context of charities, or even small businesses. Those especially penalised are microbusinesses, freelancers or even start-ups in the commercial sector, not-for-profits and social enterprises. All are massively disadvantaged by tendering for any contract. Many have more than enough skill to be able to do it, and many of the people who provide the backbone for those areas are people who accomplished it very comfortably in larger companies. The effective use of pipeline notices is a strong signal that the Government expect all contracting authorities to make a judgment that will help all those sorts of businesses and those people who can provide excellent and outstanding service. They deserve the opportunity to do so.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 449A tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I support the two amendments to which my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has just spoken. Amendment 449A covers much the same ground as his Amendment 449, but it probably goes a bit further in arguing for the need for transparency. It relates to public service contractors and where information about them should be available under FoI.
The Bill’s disclosure provisions are very limited in comparison with what would be available under FoI. Authorities responsible for contracts worth over £200 million would be required to set and publish key performance indicators, but they do not give the same information, there is a delay of probably up to one year in them and they do not help members of the public and others who might be interested in getting the information.
The amendment sets out that the FoI Act should be extended to cover information held by public sector contractors about these contracts. At present, it allows access to such information only if it is held on behalf of the commissioning authority, which normally applies only where the contract specifically entitles the authority to obtain particular information from the contractor. Where it does not, the information held by the contractor is outside the scope of FoI provisions.
There are many examples of this. Some of those cited by my noble friend probably also apply here but I shall mention one or two others. The first is a report on potential fire safety defects at Hereford County Hospital, constructed and managed under a PFI scheme by Mercia Healthcare Ltd under an agreement with the NHS trust. The report was commissioned by Mercia Healthcare from the now-defunct contractor Carillion, which was still operating at the time. The request to the trust for information about this was refused on the grounds that the report was not held by or on behalf of the trust. There are many such examples. I could explain at length some of the contracts that HS2 has got into; I shall not, but the same comments apply. There is a complete lack of transparency about information on that.
The extension to cover information held by contractors about contracts with public authorities has been supported by the Information Commissioner, the Public Accounts Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Justice Committee, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information, set up by the Government to review the FoI Act in 2015, and the Institute for Government. There are many other examples from around the world where transparency is thought necessary and desirable. I believe the UK FoI provisions should be extended to allow access to such information via a request to the public authority responsible for the contract.
While I am on my feet and while we are talking about transparency, I should like to ask the Minister about a Written Statement giving guidance to Ministers participating in government commercial activity. It comes from the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency and says that the Bill we are discussing
“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.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/22; col. 17WS.]
I could add that it does not protect the taxpayer and does not seem to protect anybody from the Minister making lots of money out of NHS contracts, as we have heard. It is odd that this Statement has come out in the middle of our deliberations on this Bill. Could the Minister explain when we can see the guidance—I have asked the Library and it does not have it yet—and how it fits in with the Bill we are discussing?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 449 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and Amendment 449A from the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Clement-Jones, which deal with transparency. The Minister will not be surprised that I will use this opportunity to raise the blocking of information about the purchase of Hikvision cameras, which are used all over the United Kingdom; he was good enough to meet me twice to discuss this and I am very grateful to him for the time he gave. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised this in a Motion to Regret debate in February. I raised it at Second Reading, quoting the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, Professor Fraser Sampson, who said he was
“encouraged to see reports … that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has now prohibited any further procurement of Hikvision surveillance technology by his department”.
I asked the Minister at the time whether he would be willing to share his own department’s response to that letter to the Cabinet Secretary from Professor Sampson, and to explain why, if it was the right thing to do in the case of the Department of Health—and I believe it was the right thing to do—to give information to Members of Parliament in parliamentary Questions, which it was, because the Minister answered Questions from me specifically on this on 25 and 26 May, it was not possible on security grounds to give the same answers it was possible to give in connection with the Department of Health.
Even more relevant, in conjunction with these amendments, is the fact that only last week the information requested in a freedom of information request about Hikvision in connection with HS2—which I will come back to—was denied. That raises quite a lot of serious problems, I think, in the minds of any member of the public, let alone parliamentarians anxious to discover the truth about why particular things are being ordered, how much they cost, whether they pose security risks and what the dangers are to the United Kingdom.
I think we have a serious problem in our procurement supply chain when it comes to the problem of Chinese technology companies—blacklisted, I might add, by a Five Eyes ally, the United States, as a threat to national security and yet allowed in the United Kingdom —who are known for their complicity in human rights violations taking place in Xinjiang against Uighurs, and I declare a non-pecuniary interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uighurs. When I met the noble Lord to discuss the legislation before us, he noted that there are over 1 million Hikvision and Dahua Technology cameras in the United Kingdom —I repeat, over 1 million. The noble Lord outlined that the Government do indeed have concerns regarding the security of these cameras and their links to the concentration camps in Xinjiang.
Now as many will be aware, a number of civil society organisations, including Free Tibet and Big Brother Watch—through freedom of information requests —have found that a number of government departments, local authorities, NHS trusts, schools, police forces, job centres and prisons use cameras manufactured by Dahua Technology and by Hikvision. What is not clear is the extent of the issue across the public procurement supply chain, and that is why these amendments are so important.
I have asked the Cabinet Office how many departments have cameras manufactured by Dahua Technology and Hikvision and, as I have explained, Ministers—with the exception of the Department of Health—have refused to reply. I welcome the decision made by the former Secretary of State at the Department of Health to commit to removing Hikvision cameras from his department, but when will we have a timetable for other departments to follow suit? How can we justify doing one thing on national security grounds in one department and not elsewhere?
I have asked Ministers how many of these cameras are at UK ports, airports and train stations and, again, I have been rebuffed on the grounds that the Government will not speculate on the security provisions on our transport network. When you apply through freedom of information requests for that information, it is declined. So, sadly, the debate around the use of Hikvision and Dahua in our public procurement supply chain is shrouded in secrecy. I hope Ministers unwilling to be transparent about the issues that we have faced hitherto will see that they are wrong to have been so and will remedy that.
Nowhere is this issue more evident than when I was recently approached by a concerned party who had reported to me that Hikvision may have received a contract from HS2 to install its cameras along the entire length of this new high-speed rail network. Following this information, I submitted a freedom of information request to HS2 asking for information on whether Hikvision has any contracts with HS2, and I was informed that HS2 does not centrally hold information regarding contracts with its suppliers. This is clearly an unacceptable state of affairs. Phase 1 of HS2 is to cost taxpayers—and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I am sure will correct me if I am underestimating this—some £44.6 billion, and that includes substantial procurement contracts. It is well within the public interest to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not going to Chinese technology companies that have been accused of complicity in gross human rights violations and the use of forced labour—slave labour.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Worthington, who cannot be here, to support our Amendment 452, which makes transparency provisions, in particular on issues of climate change. I welcome the Minister’s commitment at Second Reading that the Government
“want to deliver the highest possible standards of transparency in public procurement”.—[Official Report, 25/5/22; col. 856.]
While the Bill does not include a general duty of transparency compared with previous procurement rules, which required that contracting authorities act in a transparent manner, the Government have said:
“Transparency will be fundamental to the new regime. Extended transparency requirements and a single digital platform on which procurement data will be published will mean that decisions and processes can be monitored by anybody that wishes to do so.”
The Bill widens the authorities’ duties to publish notices and information on their procurement activities, and the provisions under Clauses 86 and 88 should improve transparency by making such notices available through a specified online system. This is welcome, but there is no substantive information on what exactly is going to be published. Instead, Clause 86 provides for appropriate authorities, through secondary legislation, to make regulations that will set out how notices and information will be published.
The amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Worthington is intended to clarify what the regulations for the publication of notices, documents and information must contain as a minimum, by ensuring that any regulations include provisions around the availability of notices or information and that these are easily accessible.
Open and accessible procurement data will be crucial in the years ahead to enable modelling of the impacts of public contracts on carbon emissions, particularly when it comes to renewal. Spend Network has started to collect procurement data on every public tender and contract in the world and to map some of this impact on a freely available basis, but it has been hampered by a lack of good-quality inputs. Nevertheless, the data available has confirmed that a 20% reduction of emissions at each contract renewal would
“see the UK government’s contracting still emitting 686,000 tonnes of carbon per month by 2030”,
but that
“poor quality data meant that we were only able to evaluate 40% of the data”.
The recent Written Question to the Minister from my noble friend Lady Worthington highlighted the lack of easily accessible data being kept by departments on both contracts and emissions from those contracts. Will the Minister agree to this simple amendment, which would ensure that there is clarity in the legislation about transparency and accessibility, especially in relation to carbon?
While I am on my feet and we are discussing transparency in contracts, I would like to ask the Minister something that I was asked at the weekend, about the £360 million Palantir contract to manage NHS data. I was contacted by a very worried local NHS manager, who says that a list of 300 redundancies has already been drawn up in the NHS digital department and that this contract with Palantir—a second person has now left the NHS to work for Palantir—is a “done and dusted deal”. I would be incredibly happy if the Minister could give me a small reassurance that I could pass on to my friend, because obviously everyone in his department is really anxious.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for introducing all the government amendments in this group. Again, it is very helpful, as there are quite a few of them, so we appreciate that.
I will speak to my four amendments and offer my support for the others in this group, so ably introduced by noble Lords. My first three are Amendments 455, 458 and 459A, which are on digital registers and digital information. I will speak to those first. Amendment 455 would require the establishment of a digital register of all public procurement for all notices; Amendment 458 would allow the creation of a digital registration system for suppliers; and Amendment 459A would require a contracting authority to publish required procurement documents on a single digital platform. The intended purpose is to allow public spending priorities and the performance of the procurement system to be understood by stakeholders, and therefore allow authorities to plan and deliver procurement in a strategic manner.
The Green Paper Transforming Public Procurement said that a
“lack of standardisation, transparency and interoperability is preventing the UK from harnessing the opportunities that open, common and shared data could bring”,
and that
“a clear digital procurement strategy focused on transparency results in greater participation and increased value for money driven by competition.”
The Cabinet Office Declaration on Government Reform policy paper, published in June last year, also supports this when it says:
“We must do better at making our data available to all so that we can be more effectively held to account.”
It also includes an action to:
“Ensure all data is as open as possible to public and third parties.”
I am sure we would all support that.
We were therefore very pleased to see this ambition reiterated by the Minister at Second Reading when he said:
“I acknowledge that transparency has been a key ask for the House. The House expects that transparency will be improved. We believe that the Bill does this.”—[Official Report, 25/5/22; col. 926.]
We have learned from today’s debate that real transparency is incredibly important to noble Lords, as this Bill progresses. We therefore believe that it is essential to put the Green Paper ambitions into the Bill, both to deliver on this promise effectively and to make sure that it cannot be rolled back or diluted, which is one of our concerns. An unambiguous statement of this commitment would help secure adequate resources, and I am sure the Minister would agree with me on the importance of this.
Looking at Clause 88, on information relating to a procurement, in Part 8 of the Bill—there are number of subsections, so I will not read it all out—I just want to check that I am reading its implications correctly. If I understand it, it creates powers to have a single supplier portal right across government. If this is correct, it is extremely positive, but I would like clarification from the Minister that that is exactly the intention of this clause. If that is the case, it would save a huge amount of time across government and across business, allowing companies to register and update their credentials once to do business with UK government. It would also allow them to establish unique IDs for contracting authorities and, we hope, then move forward in a much more practical and efficient way, which is what we would all like to see. The purpose of my Amendment 455 is to allow the Bill and the Government to articulate this objective much more clearly. I would be grateful if the Minister can clarify this.
The other vital part of the Government’s data ambitions—to bring together all the notices and data around procurement into a single source—should also have the same elevation in the Bill. It is really important that the information can then be fed back into a variety of user-friendly ways to local authorities, major procurement companies and others, so that we can generate data-driven insights and properly track the performance of different companies. Because there is spend, there is live, ongoing and updated data, which will be extremely helpful. There seems to be the ambition behind the UK’s adoption and approval of the open contracting data standard, about which it would again be helpful to get clarification. The purpose of my three amendments on data is to gain clearer provisions in this regard in the Bill, which will be easier to understand for anyone working in the procurement industry or wanting to gain a contract.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also has a number of amendments on data, and I thank him for his support for one of my amendments. I know he will speak to his amendments, but I think we are in the same place on all this. I am extremely grateful for his amendments and will listen carefully to what he has to say when he introduces them.
I turn to my other amendment, Amendment 459, and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her support for it. Its purpose is to require each ministerial department to calculate the estimated carbon emissions from public contracts entered into and to lay an annual report on this before Parliament. The amendment seeks to look at the impact of the procurement regime from an emissions perspective. Given the weather at the moment, climate change is on everyone’s mind, so I hope the Minister and the Government will think carefully about the areas where we are looking to improve the impact of the Procurement Bill—on climate change, emissions, net zero and so forth.
There is a National Audit Office report on public sector emissions, which is extremely worth looking at. I urge the Minister to have a close look at it to see whether there is any way that its recommendations can also be part of what we are trying to achieve through the Procurement Bill. The main issue is around reporting: although many companies will do it voluntarily, many others do not report at all, so there is no balance in the information that we have. For example, there are no mandatory emissions measurements or reporting requirements for the public sector as a whole. The wider public sector includes local authorities, schools and hospitals, all of which may well have high carbon emissions. Peers for the Planet published a very good report on local authorities and net zero, in which it noted that there was little consistency in local government reporting of emissions. I understand that a lot of this concerns BEIS, but the Procurement Bill provides us with an opportunity to look at whether this is something that would have a positive impact on driving down emissions.
This concludes the introduction of my amendments and I will turn now to those of other noble Lords. Many noble Lords spoke in support of the different amendments on the publication of notices and the concerns around freedom of information. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in particular, made an extremely important speech about his two amendments. He said again that it is a welcome ambition to simplify what we are trying to achieve here with procurement. As I have said, any noble Lord who worked on OJEU will be very grateful for simplification. As was debated last week, it is terribly important that we do not make things more difficult for SMEs, charities, voluntary organisations and, as my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn said, for freelancers, who were often forgotten when we debated this Bill previously. Transparency is clearly very important when looking at those kinds of contracts.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to a number of amendments in this group on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wallace and myself. I must first apologise that there was no presence on the Liberal Democrats Benches at the beginning. I am afraid my colleagues have been in the wars. My noble friend Lord Wallace is at the dentist, my noble friend Lord Fox is suffering from Covid and my noble friend Lord Scriven was delayed for four hours on a train—so it has all been a tale of disaster.
I shall speak first to my noble friend Lord Wallace’s Amendments 450 and 451, which are intended to probe the nature of the exemptions from publishing or disclosing information. It is welcome that centralised investigations by a Minister of the Crown into whether suppliers should be excluded are explicitly allowed under the Bill and that reports from these investigations must be published. However, under the current Bill the grounds for not publishing such reports include national security and the release of sensitive commercial information. Sensitive commercial information is defined under Clause 85 as any information which
“would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person if it were published”.
Given that a debarment investigation, by its very nature, is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of a person in that it will have a significant reputational impact on a company or individual that will affect their commercial relations, this test is too broad and is likely to lead to many debarment investigation reports not being published or to decisions to do so being contested by the company.
Clause 85(2)(b) is likely to lead to more redaction of information than is necessary or in the public interest by putting the onus on the contracting authority to prove there is no chance it will cause any harm to the commercial interests of any person—a standard which is very vague and difficult to enforce. We therefore argue that information in public contracts regarding how public funds are spent should be public by design and redacted only by exception when doing so is in the overriding public interest. Doing so reduces the risk for contracting authorities and will avoid overreaction.
My noble friend’s Amendment 448 has the same intent as Amendment 449A. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke to that amendment extremely cogently and I have signed it. As he said, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 applies to information about a contract held by a public authority but not normally to information held by the contractor. Public access to information about public sector contracts varies from contract to contract, depending on their precise terms and on the willingness of the parties to adopt measures permitting greater access.
Much of the information the public may seek will relate to problems not anticipated at the contract stage or to information which the authority did not consider it needed to monitor in relation to performance under the contract. The Bill provides for only limited disclosure to the public about the performance of a contract. An annual assessment of performance against KPIs will be required for contracts valued at over £2 million, but an authority will not be required to publish more than three KPIs and may not be required to publish any at all if it considers that they would not allow the appropriate assessment of the contract’s performance. The actual information to be published about compliance with KPIs will be left to regulations.
In any event, a 12-month wait for an annual publication is unlikely to satisfy the needs of those concerned about an existing problem, and this amendment, as the noble Lord described, provides that all information relating to a contract with a public authority held by the contractor or a subcontractor will be subject to the FoIA or to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. As he described, this follows the approach of many countries’ FoI laws: for example, Australia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand—I could go on.
Amendment 449 would in effect make this position under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act and the EIR. It would ensure that any information held by a contractor in connection with a public authority contract would be deemed to be held on behalf of the authority and thus be subject to the FoIA and EIR. The public’s right to such information would no longer depend on the precise terms of the contract. We strongly support that amendment.
We also support Amendments 455 and 459A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I have also tabled Amendment 456, which is complementary to Amendment 459A. As the noble Baroness described, Amendment 459A is designed explicitly to frame a duty around transparency in UK procurement beyond publishing the notices themselves as required in the Bill. As she described, this is drawn from the OECD’s recommendation on public procurement and seems to have some purchase with the Cabinet Office. The amendment would help establish how and where the notices should be published. It also says why or what the objective behind publishing the notices is. It is important that the completeness and comprehensiveness of the notices are not changed without accountability.
Amendment 456 goes a bit further and adds specific requirements about the platform’s implementation and would ensure that the information on the digital platform was regularly reviewed for accuracy, timeliness and completeness. A crucial aspect is the need for the contract award notices to be published in a timely fashion. Current legislation requires contract award notices to be published within 30 days, yet research by the Spend Network shows that the mean time to publish contract award notices is over 40 days. Many ministerial departments spending billions of pounds take more than three months to publish notices. The Cabinet Office takes an average of 2.7 months. Vital information is missing from nearly three-quarters of contract award notices, and this is wrong because it denies the public, businesses of all sizes and the media the ability to understand what financial commitments the Government are making and with whom—as with that egregious fast-track PPE contract situation.
We need to ensure that this long-standing problem does not get worse and that the appropriate authority ensures that public sector organisations publish complete, accurate and accessible data under an open licence and that the 30-day threshold set out in Clause 51 is respected in practice. That is what Amendment—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting him. I am afraid that there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I am tempted to say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that he need not sit down since I am about to call him.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Thank you. My Lords, if noble Lords thought that my previous speech took a long time, they will not be happy with the second half of it, which concerns the technical parts. These relate to Amendments 452A, 452B, 519A and 519B, which are technical amendments from the Local Government Association designed to ensure that all notices come within the new digital platform.
Amendments 452A and 452B relate to Clause 86(1) of the Bill, which sets out that appropriate authorities may by regulations make provision about
“the form and content of notices, documents or other information to be published or provided under this Act”
and
“how such notices or documents are, or information is, to be published, provided or revised.”
The amendments would help ensure that future regulations do not contravene the purpose of the single digital platform wherever possible and support the move to progressively streamline the many different publication requirements for procurement information and contract-spend data placed on local government and the public sector as a whole through different pieces of legislation.
Amendment 519A would omit Section 89(4)(b) and 89(5) of the Transport Act 1985. This would remove the requirement for local authorities to issue notices of tender individually to all persons who have given to that authority a written notice indicating that they wish to receive invitations to tender for the provision of local services for that authority’s area. This would bring the requirements to advertise tenders for transport services into line with those set out in the Bill and facilitate the ambition to create a single digital platform where all public tenders are advertised in one place.
Finally, Amendment 519B would amend the Service Subsidy Agreements (Tendering) (England) Regulations 2002 by removing Regulations 4 and 5. Regulation 4 requires local authorities to publish information relating to tender invitations in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the same regulations. Regulation 5 requires local authorities to publish tender information to the general public at times, in places and in a form which are convenient to the public, and to publish notices of tenders in local newspapers. Removing the two regulations would ensure that information about contract pipelines and contract awards for service subsidies will in future be published in the same place and format as information about any other public contract, to improve consistency and accessibility. A service subsidy in this context is where councils subsidise companies operating public passenger transport services to run services on routes which may not otherwise be economically viable, for example bus services in rural areas. I hope that has explained these rather technical amendments and very much hope that the Minister understands the motive behind them.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not rising sooner; I never know how many spokesmen are going to rise from the various Benches. This has been another interesting and informative debate. It has also been extremely wide-ranging, as has become our custom in this Committee. I will try to answer as many points as possible, but there are things coming from various areas that we will look at carefully. This is your Lordships’ Committee and therefore it is perfectly reasonable for points to be made. My aspiration is to answer, but I may not be able to answer them all.
Before I get on to the main amendments, I will address various things I was asked about. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, asked about the Palantir contract. I am advised that this is a DHSC NHS contract. I am not informed in my department of the details she asked for, but I will ask my officials to follow up and respond to her later.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about a Written Ministerial Statement made last week. The timing of the publication of the participation in government commercial activity guidelines for Ministers referred to in that Statement is not connected to this Bill. The guidance sets out how Ministers can be appropriately involved in commercial activity, including procurements, under the current procurement rules.
I was anticipating in a later group—indeed, there are some relevant amendments—a debate about Hikvision. I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, as well as for the opportunity to speak to him about this matter, which, as he said, has some security considerations. So far as the actuality of what might or could happen is concerned—that is a potential rather than a loaded spin on it—it is ultimately up to contracting authorities to apply the grounds for exclusion under this Bill on a contract-by-contract basis. The national security ground is discretionary, meaning that authorities can take into account a range of factors, including the nature of the contract being tendered. However, the debarment regime will allow for the central consideration of suppliers on the grounds of national security. As the noble Lord knows, the Government’s security group is working with the National Technical Authority and the Government Commercial Function on the government security aspects of this issue.
I appreciate the noble Lord’s impatience, given the sensitivities of the issue. Policy options are being worked out for how to mitigate the security risks posed by this type of equipment; they range from primary legislation to ban certain companies from the government supply chain to issuing more advice and guidance for contracting authorities. The Cabinet Office has also published guidance setting out the steps that all government departments must take to identify and mitigate modern slavery and labour abuse risks throughout the commercial lifecycle, focusing on the areas of highest risk. We may well return to this issue in debate on a later group, but I can assure the noble Lord that the matters he raised are ones that the Government are not minimising but currently considering.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister. Without pre-empting our debate later in the Committee’s proceedings, is he in a position now to respond to the letter to the Cabinet Secretary from Professor Sampson, which I referred to in my remarks earlier? If not, could that correspondence be made available to your Lordships between now and Report?
Also, has the Minister had a chance to look at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee’s report, which called for a total prohibition of Hikvision, and the decision not just of the United States Administration but of the European Parliament to ban Hikvision from their public procurement policies? Given the national security implications, as he said—earlier, I referred specifically to the suggestion that HS2 might procure and use Hikvision cameras on the whole of its new network—does the noble Lord not agree that this is something on which we should shine more light rather more urgently?
Lord True (Con)
Perish the thought that I might comment on the shelf life of HS2, but I do take what the noble Lord says very seriously. The fact is that some of the factors he mentions are taken into consideration. This issue is live. I accept his chiding. I will look carefully at his words and at what he has asked to be published or not published, but I hope that we may get a resolution of this matter, because I understand the demand, the request and the desire for a clear and public solution to the points put forward by the noble Lord. We will see what we can do, if not before the next group then certainly before we come back to this issue on Report.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, I hope he will go back to the original statement to reflect further on whether this information could be published. This was an open letter from Professor Sampson that was published—it appeared in the national newspapers that the letter had been sent to the Cabinet Secretary—and I would have thought that most of the issues raised in that letter are things to which Members of your Lordships’ House should certainly be privy.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have given further information. The noble Lord referred to a whole range of factors which he asked to be considered and asked me to respond to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report and so on. I said I would reflect on all he has said and come back, but I gather there has been some reflection on this aspect of his menu. We will no doubt maintain this dialogue.
The amendments we were talking about—Amendments 448, 449 and 449A—all relate to freedom of information and seek to bring external suppliers into the scope of the Act. In practice, the Government do not believe that the amendment would add much and could impose burdens on businesses that would make public contracts unattractive. The public authority will already hold all the details of the tendering process and the resulting contracts, and that information can already be requested under the FoI Act. The desire has been expressed in some quarters to reform the FoI Act, but we are looking at the proposals before us.
Furthermore, information held by a supplier or subcontractor on behalf of a contracting authority is already within scope of the Act. The amendments also introduce unhelpful limitations on the ability of contracting authorities to withhold commercially confidential information. This is a point of debate, but the FoI Act sets out the duties on public bodies when they receive requests for information under the Act. Restating the operation of that legislation is not necessary in this Bill. The Bill sets out in detail what information is required to be published and the triggers for publication, as well as requiring contracting authorities to explain why they are withholding any data.
Amendment 449A also seeks to extend the enforcement powers of the Information Commissioner to suppliers and subcontractors and open them up to criminal prosecution. The Information Commissioner already has enforcement powers in relation to public authorities and therefore in relation to the information held by others on their behalf. We believe that transparency is a sanction for authorities that fail to fulfil their obligations to publish as the failure will be obvious to the public. Failure to publish information required by the Act could be subject to judicial review, and there is also potential for a civil claim for breach of statutory duty pursuant to Clause 89 if the supplier can demonstrate that it suffered loss or damage arising from a breach of a publication obligation. Additionally, an appropriate authority has a power under Clauses 96 to 98 to investigate a contracting authority’s compliance with the Act, make recommendations and, if appropriate, provide statutory guidance to share lessons learned as a result of the investigation. Recommendations issued under Clause 97 come with a duty on the contracting authority to have regard to those recommendations when considering how to comply with the Act, and failure to do so would also leave the contracting authority open to judicial review.
Where a contracting authority is required to publish something that includes sensitive commercial information, it may withhold or redact that information only if there is an “overriding public interest” in doing so. Where the commercial confidentiality exemption is used to withhold or redact information, this must be publicly recorded. As such, there will be full transparency about what has been withheld and why, and interested parties can always challenge such decisions by requesting the withheld information under FoI law. This process is subject to the oversight of the Information Commissioner. Interested parties can also complain to the procurement review unit, which we discussed the other day.
Amendments 450 and 451 are from the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox. They are absent, and I send them best wishes for their respective aliments. Expertus dico: I have just had an aliment as noble Lords saw in the last Session, and I very much feel for all noble Lords. These amendments would make it harder for contracting authorities to withhold information in instances where there is sensitive commercial content. The overall result could be the inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or fear of such disclosure, both of which are likely to have a chilling effect on suppliers bidding if they cannot be confident that their commercial secrets will be respected by contracting authorities. This could lead to a reduction in choice, quality and value.
Amendment 452, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington and Lady Boycott, and Amendment 455, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—which I think is intended to address the central digital platform, not the data on the supplier registration system—propose to introduce various requirements about the accessibility of published information and how it is licensed. The Government have already committed to a publicly available digital platform which will allow citizens to understand authorities’ procurement decisions. This data will be freely available. It will remain subject to data protection law and redaction under the exemptions set out in Clause 85.
However, not all information should be published on the central digital platform. For example, some associated tender documents produced under Clause 20 in certain procurement exercises may need to be circulated to only a limited group of suppliers, for instance, where that information is sensitive. As set out in the Green Paper, we will apply the open contracting data standard, and specify this in more detail in secondary legislation. Published data will be covered by open government licence where possible; personal data contained on the platform will be available without any licence.
Amendments 452A and 452B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would amend Clause 86 to ensure that regulations require publication on a single digital platform. These amendments are unnecessary as the Government have already committed to providing this platform.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has tabled Amendment 456, which imposes obligations on an appropriate authority in relation to standards and quality of data on the platform. Clause 86(1)(a) already makes specific provision for regulations to set out both the form and the content of information to be published under the various notices required by the Bill. This power is there to ensure that regulations can establish the very standards and formats that I believe the noble Lord is seeking.
On the noble Lord’s proposed new paragraph (b), a notice is usually a snapshot of a moment in time. Most notices should not be updated after the initial publication and it is the legal responsibility of the contracting authority publishing the information to ensure that it is timely, accurate and complete. The appropriate authority—a Minister of the Crown, a Welsh Minister or a Northern Ireland department—will not be in a position to verify all that information, which is why it is the responsibility of the contracting authority.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting, but can the Minister therefore explain why these time limits are so regularly and hugely overridden? The research shows, as I mentioned, that the Cabinet Office itself has a delay of 2.7 months compared with its legal obligation of 30 days. How does the Minister explain that, and why is no further action needed in terms of compliance?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, if the Cabinet Office is sinning, I will take the matter away and look into it. I heard what the noble Lord said about time limits, but I do not have a specific response in this area at the moment, and nor can I either confirm or deny the figure he gave. We have undertaken to engage on these issues, and we will find the answers and will look very carefully at what the noble Lord said in his speech—or rather, his two speeches.
Amendment 458, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, relates to the creation of a digital registration system for suppliers. The register of suppliers described in the Green Paper remains a priority, and provision for this register is set out in Clause 88.
Amendment 459, tabled by the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and others seeks to introduce a requirement for government departments to produce reports on carbon emissions relating to procured goods, services and works. I made the Government’s position clear previously that such matters should not be included in the Bill and that remains our position.
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Clement-Jones, for their Amendment 459A. However, the Government are opposed to this amendment as well. It would create an obligation to have the central digital platform operational within six months of passing the Act. Just to be clear, Clause 86 creates the powers that the Government will use to require publication on the single digital platform. Clause 88 is the basis of the supplier registration system, which is the “tell us once” system through which suppliers will communicate information about themselves to contracting authorities.
I understand from his helpful explanatory statement that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was referring to the former—the single digital platform. We do not wish to commit to such a timetable now, as it might not be necessary or possible to deliver the whole functionality of that platform to that timetable. As the noble Lord knows, there is already a six-month period of pre-implementation built in, but I hear what he says and I think there is broad agreement in the Committee that this development is desirable. I welcome the positive response from the Liberal Democrats and Her Majesty’s Opposition, having had discussions about it, and I will take away what they say.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Can I just say—because sometimes these things pass by and they should be noted—that we are very pleased with that commitment from the Minister and thank him for it?
Lord True (Con)
Right. Unfortunately, the noble Lord will be disappointed by my response to the second part of the amendment, because I have already explained that contracting authorities will not be required to publish all information to the central platform.
I turn finally to Amendments 519A and 519B from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The Bill exempts contracts for public passenger transport services under paragraph 17 of Schedule 2, as their award is regulated by Department for Transport legislation. We believe that it is more appropriate that the transparency provisions governing these arrangements are kept within their existing legal regime, and local authorities are therefore not placed under an unnecessary burden of trying to comply with two separate regimes simultaneously when placing such contracts. I have, however, asked my officials to engage with the Department for Transport to better understand how we can ensure that both regimes are aligned—I think that was one of the points behind the noble Lord’s remarks.
I thank the noble Lord for his generous remarks. Having been a bit flinty on a number of the others, I will none the less, as ever, study carefully Hansard and your Lordships’ very well-informed submissions. Against that background, I commend the government amendments in my name and respectfully request that other amendments in the group not be pressed.
“(a) satisfies the contracting authority’s requirements, and(b) ”
Baroness Noakes
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes why suppliers which do not satisfy conditions of participation must be excluded from a contract award under clause 18 though such suppliers are not required to be excluded from the tendering process under clause 21(6).
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 107 in this group. The large part of this group is government amendments, but my two small probing amendments have found their way into my noble friend’s rather large group.
Amendment 96 is another “may/must” amendment, which we always enjoy in this Committee. It probes the effect of not satisfying participation conditions on a tender. Clause 21 allows a contracting authority to set conditions of participation in specific areas. Subsection (6) permits but does not require the contracting authority to exclude a supplier which does not satisfy a participation condition from then participating in all or part of the tendering process.
If a contracting authority does not exclude a supplier from the tender process, one might think that such a tender could result in the award of a contract. If that were not the case, I can see no reasonable case for allowing such a tender into the process at all. However, subsection (3)(a) of Clause 18, which deals with contract award, states that
“a contracting authority … must disregard any tender from a supplier that does not satisfy the conditions of participation”.
Hence, we seem to have an Alice in Wonderland world where a supplier which has fallen foul of participation provisions can take part in the tender process, but only on the strict understanding that it cannot win the contract. That does not make any sense to me. My amendment would make the terms of Clause 18 permissive, so that a contract could be awarded. Another solution would be to make exclusion mandatory from the tender as well as from the contract award.
My second amendment in this group, Amendment 107, is a simple probing amendment to ascertain what is meant by Clause 19(3), which deals with competitive tendering procedures. Subsection (3) requires the procedure to be proportionate,
“having regard to the nature, complexity and cost of the contract”,
which seems at first sight entirely sensible and should stop contracting authorities using unnecessarily burdensome procedures. What subsection (3) does not say, however, is how this is to be assessed.
In a rare case of going beyond what is in the Bill, the Explanatory Notes say:
“Subsection (3) requires contracting authorities to ensure that the procedure is not designed in a manner that is unnecessarily complex or burdensome for suppliers”.
This is, in fact, from paragraph 141 of the Explanatory Notes, not paragraph 142 as I set out in my explanatory statement. The Explanatory Notes therefore firmly place the consideration of proportionality in the context of suppliers, but that has not found its way into the text of Clause 19, and that is what my Amendment 107 seeks to change.
In addition, even if subsection (3) could be read as being a supplier-centred proportionality requirement, it does not give any help as to whether the contracting authority has to consider suppliers generally, in an objective way, or whether they should take account of the particular characteristics of likely suppliers. I have in mind in particular that what proportionality might look like to a multi-million-pound contracting business is light years away from its impact on a small or medium-sized enterprise.
I hope my noble friend will agree to make the Bill clearer in this regard, or at least make a clear statement from the Dispatch Box as to how Clause 19(3) is intended to be interpreted. I beg to move.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 105 in the names of my noble friends Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Fox. I will come on to some of the points the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made, but before I start, I apologise for not being here at the start of the Committee. As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said, I was on a train for four hours. Actually, you can hear my croakiness: I am the healthiest one on our Front Bench today, so I am here—
Lord Scriven (LD)
Well, the healthiest on the Procurement Bill and constitutional affairs Front-Bench team. I thank the Minister, I think, for passing on his cold of last week to me.
My noble friends’ Amendment 105 is also a probing amendment. Clause 19 uses the word “appropriate”, and this amendment is to see
“under what circumstances it may be considered ‘appropriate’ not to undergo an open tendering procedure.”
There are no criteria or guidelines about what may be appropriate. This is just a probing amendment to see if the Minister can explain why such a wide-ranging word as “appropriate” is in the clause. Who will decide whether it is appropriate, and what guidelines or criteria would the Government expect the authority to seek in determining whether the open tendering procedure should not go ahead?
With Amendment 96, yet again, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raises some important points in Committee by changing just one word. I particularly point to what she described as the “Alice in Wonderland world”, in which you can be debarred from one part of tendering but not have been given a contract—or the other way round. The noble Baroness’s suggestion to include exclusion from the tendering process in the Bill makes eminent sense or we will be in the position in which people could, by law, tender but would be debarred from getting the contract, even if theirs was potentially the best tender around.
With those comments, I feel that, particularly on Amendment 105 in the name of my noble friends, some clear guidance from the Dispatch Box would be welcome.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for introducing her two amendments. As ever during Committee on this Bill, she has spotted where the nonsense lies and where problems could quite easily be resolved, if her wise words are listened and adhered to.
On her Amendment 96, I know my dear and noble friend Lord Coaker is very disappointed not to be having the must/may discussion with her today and that it has fallen to me, but it is an important point. Different terminology in different parts of the Bill impacts on what is expected. What does that mean? As the noble Baroness clearly demonstrated, if you follow that logically—all the way down the rabbit hole, to carry on the metaphor—it does not make sense any more. I think she has picked up something that could be sorted out straightforwardly and I would be interested to see whether the Minister agrees.
The noble Baroness’s second amendment, Amendment 107, on the lack of assessment and what is in the Explanatory Notes not being sufficient for what we need to know to feel secure about this clause, is again a simple amendment that makes a lot of sense. To me, it strengthens and provides clarity to the Bill. The noble Baroness made the critical point that these kinds of things have a different impact on multinationals from small businesses and, as we have said previously, charities and voluntary organisations. This is important.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, ably introduced the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I hope the Liberal Democrat Front Bench manages to recover before we come back in September, but I thank the noble Lord for that. They are about terminology —what the words mean and what the impact of that terminology is on the Bill. As the noble Lord pointed out, there are no guidelines and criteria, and nothing specified about what “appropriate” means, nor on whose shoulders it falls to interpret what it means and whether that could be open to challenge. Again, they are small but important amendments and we support them.
There are a number of government amendments in this group. I have read through them and they seem straightforward, but I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s introduction.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I seek to deal with amendments related to competitive procedures. I will start with the government amendments. Amendment 98 ensures that contracting authorities can choose not to assess tenders that do not comply with the procedure. This is different from improper behaviour in a procurement resulting in exclusion, which is addressed in Clause 30. As such, this amendment gives contracting authorities the discretion to exclude for procedural breaches that do not meet the higher threshold for improper behaviour and to ignore an insignificant breach, depending on the context. Government Amendments 99 and 103 are consequential to Amendment 98.
Turning to the Clause 19 amendments, Amendment 106 would replace
“a competitive tendering procedure other than an open procedure”
with “a competitive flexible procedure”, making it much easier to understand the two types of competitive tendering procedure. There are many consequential amendments to update this terminology, including Amendments 108, 109, 115, 132, 133, 155, 156, 157, 161, 188, 189, 192, 195, 199, 202, 213, 221 and 289.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
I apologise for interrupting, but I just want to ask a question in relation to Clause 32. It is about supported employment provision, which has been raised with me by Aspire Community Works, an award-winning community enterprise working to promote social mobility.
Its concern is that the current drafting of the Bill represents a significant reduction in the ability of commissioning authorities to reserve contracts for supported employment, first by restricting them only to competitive flexible procedures—rather than open procedures, as is currently the case—and, secondly, by limiting their use only to supported employment providers rather than enabling other bodies to carry out such work within a supported employment setting—again, as is the case at present.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord True, indicated that the Bill
“continues the existing ability to reserve certain contracts for public service mutuals and for supported employment providers.”—[Official Report, 25/5/22; col. 858.]
This seems inconsistent with the Bill’s inclusion of the two restrictions I have mentioned. Can the Minister tell us, probably not now but subsequently, whether this is an intentional limitation on the use of reserved contracts or simply an oversight in drafting which I hope she will want to correct in view of the Government’s desire to enhance the role of social enterprises and SMEs in the procurement process? I have probably chosen the wrong time to raise this, but the Minister had just mentioned the relevant clause.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
It is certainly not the Government’s intention to exclude those groups of providers. In fact, we want to encourage them and make things easier and more transparent for them. I will take a look at Hansard and discuss the issues in Clause 32 with the team. We will make sure that, perhaps in those groupings throughout the summer period, we discuss these issues further; I will make a note to do that. It is absolutely our intention not to make this more difficult for those groups but to make it easier, so we will look at how we can do that if this clause makes things more difficult.
In Clause 33, Amendments 200 and 201 would clarify that, where a supplier does not qualify for the reserved contract, the contracting authority can exclude that supplier at any point in the procurement process. Amendments 203 and 204 to Clause 33 are simply to improve the drafting, as I said.
Amendment 206 would make it clear that suppliers will fail to be eligible for reserved contracts only where they have signed a “comparable contract”, as defined in subsection (7), within the previous three years, not just because such a contract was awarded to them. It ensures that there is no risk of a supplier being penalised where a contracting authority had decided to award a contract to a supplier but, for whatever reason, the contract did not progress.
I turn next to Clause 34. Amendment 209 clarifies that competitive flexible procedures can allow for the exclusion of a supplier from both participating and progressing in the procedure where the supplier is neither a member of a dynamic market, nor a part of a dynamic market—for example, a category of goods or services. The current provision refers only to “the exclusion of suppliers”, and this change clarifies that this means participation and progression in the procurement by, for example, progressing to the next stage of a multi-stage procurement. Amendments 214 and 215 are consequential to this amendment.
Amendment 262 in Clause 48 changes “virtue of” to “reference to” for ease of reading.
Amendment 341 removes the more general reference to “procurement” in Clause 56, to clarify that notification of exclusion is required in all competitive tendering procedures.
Finally, Amendments 427 and 428 are technical amendments to Clause 78: the first to ensure drafting consistency across the Bill and the second to reflect the fact that Northern Ireland and Wales have derogated from this provision and so do not require the threshold-altering powers in subsection (4).
I turn now to Amendment 96, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, which questions why a supplier “must” satisfy the conditions of participation in Clause 18(3)(a) to be awarded the contract, while in Clause 21(6) contracting authorities only “may” exclude the supplier from participating or progressing in the competition. I reassure noble Lords that the two clauses work together: suppliers must satisfy the conditions of participation in order to be awarded the ensuing public contract, and that is what is addressed in Clauses 18(3)(a) and 21(2). Clause 21(6) gives the contracting authority the flexibility to decide when to assess the conditions of participation, and at what point to exclude suppliers that have not met them. Having “may” in Clause 21(6) allows the condition to be assessed during the procedure. For example, when it comes to insurance requirements, a company may not have the full cover initially, but it may have the chance to obtain it before that contract is awarded. I hope that this makes it slightly clearer; if not, I am sure that we can discuss it further throughout the summer months.
I now turn to non-government amendments. Amendment 105 to Clause 19 from the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox—both of whom I hope will be better very soon—proposes to remove the competitive flexible procedure. The practical reality of procurement is that the open procedure is simply not appropriate in all circumstances. The government procurement agreement contains three procedures: open, selective and limited or direct-award tendering. The open procedure is popular where the requirement is well-defined and straightforward; price is likely to be the key feature. There is no pre-qualification of suppliers, any interested party can submit a tender and they must all be assessed.
We want contracting authorities to use the new competitive flexible procedure, which we could not have had when we were in the EU, to design fit-for-purpose procurements that deliver the best outcomes. This may mean including phases such as a prototype development when seeking innovative solutions. Contracting authorities will use it to limit the field by applying conditions of participation to take forward only those suppliers with the financial and technical capability to deliver the contract. Clause 21(1) requires these to be proportionate so as not to disadvantage smaller suppliers.
The competitive flexible procedure also allows for negotiation and discussion of the requirements, which is particularly important to ensure not only that the best value is obtained but that requirements are clearly understood. The ability to negotiate is severely limited under the current EU-derived rules.
Clause 19(3) requires the contracting authority to ensure that any competitive tendering procedure is proportionate, having regard to the nature, cost and complexity of the contract. Amendment 107 from my noble friend Lady Noakes proposes to make these considerations from the perspective of the supplier. We believe that these assessments are better considered by contracting authorities in the round following pre-market engagement. Otherwise it would be possible for prospective suppliers to challenge and assert that a procedure is not appropriate.
To counterbalance the flexibility given to contracting authorities to design a competitive tendering procedure, we wanted to ensure that procedures do not become overly convoluted or burdensome for suppliers. We believe that Clause 19(3) achieves this, as it will force the contracting authority to consider what is proportionate, without suppliers dictating the specifics of the procedure. I understand that my noble friend Lady Noakes requires more clarity, and I am sure we can do that if that explanation did not provide it.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I want to come back to the Minister’s explanation about the word “appropriate” and it being wide. I understand that there may be reasons why a fully open procurement would not be wanted. Amendment 105 deals with what is appropriate. The Minister raised an issue relating to prototypes. Clause 18(3)(a) states:
“In assessing which tender best satisfies the award criteria, a contracting authority … must disregard any tender from a supplier that soes not satisfy the conditions of participation.”
If it cannot do the prototype, it would be debarred. I think further clarification is required about the Government’s view about an appropriate situation in which a fully open tendering procedure would not be required.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
It is obvious that the noble Lord, and probably all noble Lords, need more clarity about this. I do not have any further clarity at the moment, but we will make sure we provide that because it is obviously an issue of concern.
I have just been handed a note to avoid a Hansard correction. To correct something I said about the consistency of Clause 21, I need to refer to Clauses 18(3)(a) and 21(2), which both make clear that conditions of participation must be satisfied. I believe I said Clause 22(2) rather than Clause 21(2). I clarify that we were talking about Clause 21(2), not Clause 22(2).
The competitive flexible procedure also allows for negotiation and discussion of the requirements, which is particularly important not only to ensure that the best value is obtained but that the requirements are clearly understood. The ability to negotiate is severely limited under the current rules—I think I have got past that, but we will keep going.
Clause 19(3) requires the contracting authority to ensure that any competitive tendering procedure is proportionate, having regard to the nature, cost and complexity of the contract. Amendment 107 from my noble friend Lady Noakes proposes to make these considerations from the perspective of the supplier—we have been through all this, and we have agreed that clarity is what my noble friend Lady Noakes requires. Sorry, I went back in my speech. I was looking back because the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, had asked me to go back. I will now go forward.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I do not think my noble friend the Minister can move her amendments yet; she will move them when they are reached in their proper place on the Marshalled List. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and particularly for the support for my amendments in this group, for which I am grateful.
So far as Amendment 96 is concerned, I was grateful for my noble friend’s explanation, which seemed to make sense. I am content with that. I have no idea what the clarification she was reading into Hansard was about, but I do not suppose it really matters.
Where Amendment 107 is concerned, I am rather less satisfied. I think I agree with my noble friend that clarity is required. My amendment was tabled because the Explanatory Notes went further than the Bill and said that it should be from the suppliers’ perspective. But I think I heard my noble friend say that we do not want contractors challenging the procedures; well, actually, yes, we do, if they are burdensome. If we are trying to set out that the aim is, as correctly stated in the Explanatory Notes, to make sure that these are not burdensome for suppliers, we should facilitate challenge of contracting authorities and not just assume that contracting authorities have a monopoly on wisdom on what is proportionate in this regard. I am not happy with that response today, but we are agreed on clarity, so perhaps we can achieve a route to clarity between now and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Coaker
“(3A) In the case of a defence and security contract, unless it would leave no tenders that satisfy all other award criteria, a contracting authority must disregard any tender from a supplier that—(a) is not a United Kingdom supplier or treaty state supplier, or(b) intends to sub-contract the performance of all or part of the contract to a supplier that is not a United Kingdom supplier or treaty state supplier.”
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, to her place and I thank her for carrying on the tradition in this Committee of briefing me on some of the points that I may raise in the way that other Ministers in this Committee have done.
For the benefit of the Committee, I start by saying that nothing I am going to say—which in some respects will be quite critical of the Government’s equipment programme—in any way suggests that any Member of this Committee, or anybody making these decisions, is not absolutely concerned with the proper defence of our country. I just wanted to make that clear. I think it is really important to state that we may have a difference of opinion and we may disagree about some of the equipment programmes and some of the decisions that have been made, but I would never question the commitment of any Member of this Committee or any Minister of this Government to defend our country and do their best for the security of our nation—particularly in the current circumstances. I think it is important to start with that, and I am sure that will be met with agreement by all Members of the Committee.
I wish to move my own Amendment 101—I am grateful for my noble friend Lord Hunt’s support for that—and Amendment 485, where, again, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend but also for that of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I will deal quickly with Amendment 101, which I think can be summed up by saying that it is just trying to encourage the Government to look at how we might use more of our defence procurement spending to support British industry and British suppliers. That is the extent of it.
I am sure the Minister will say that the Ministry of Defence does everything it can, that it works according to various international agreements, that it is not always possible to source certain contracts within the UK, et cetera, but many of us looking at contracts wonder why it appears so difficult for us to support British industry, when many countries do not seem to face the same difficulties. Given the freedoms we are now supposed to have, one would perhaps expect that to be easier than it was before.
I will give just one example to make this point. In 2018, the Government announced a £1.5 billion programme for fleet support ships to be built. They said they were going to build them in British yards but, as far as I am aware, not a single screw or bolt has been fastened. It is that sort of thing. When is that going to happen? When are the fleet support ships going to be built in British yards, as they were supposed to be? The Government said they were looking at a high proportion of this being done in the UK, but what does that mean? Some clarity would be helpful for the Committee and for those who read these deliberations on whether it is the Government’s intention to increase the amount of procurement that takes place in UK industry, so we can use our procurement to support that.
Before I move on to Amendment 485, this goes to the heart of what I am saying. Before us is a procurement Bill. It is an important government Bill that seeks to make a difference and use the hundreds of billions of pounds that are spent to deliver certain objectives for the Government. Why will this Bill, as it is drafted, make a difference to the defence equipment budget and programme? We could sit down now. How will this make a practical difference? What is in here? Some of this needs to be put on the record, so I am going to quote the Public Accounts Committee of the other place. It was not clear from the Government’s letter in response to that committee’s report, which said that the Procurement Bill was going to make a great difference, how it is going to do that. That is what I think is really important.
Noble Lords will recognise that Amendment 485 is a proposed new clause to be inserted after Clause 98, so it does not relate specifically to the defence clauses, as such. It relates to Clauses 96, 97 and 98. In other words, the Bill itself allows for procurement investigations, and the recommendations and guidance that follow them. My Amendment 485, supported by my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, goes after that clause because it seeks to insert an audit of the equipment plans, and therefore investigate them and make recommendations. That is the whole point of doing the annual audit.
Why is this so important? I am not going to read all sorts of things, but I will use one or two examples, because this is really serious. The Public Accounts Committee of the other place, in October 2021, produced the report Improving the Performance of Major Defence Equipment Contracts. It said:
“There have been numerous reviews of defence procurement”—
this is why I am saying we all have an interest in this—
“over the past 35 years”.
I am making a defence-equipment point, not a party-political point. The reviews have
“provided the Department with opportunities to take stock and learn from experience. We are therefore extremely disappointed and frustrated by the continued poor track record of the Department and its suppliers—including significant net delays of 21 years across the programmes most recently examined by the National Audit Office—and by wastage of taxpayers’ money running into the billions.”
If you go through this report, you see that it logs detail after detail of problems that the committee believes the Government need to urgently address. The Government’s response is that they are dealing with this, but I think the Committee would want to know how. What are they doing on all of those points?
Using the work of the Defence Select Committee again, it talks about problems in aviation and an inquiry it has just launched. We read in the Sunday Telegraph at the weekend about procurement problems with the type of aircraft purchased for aircraft carriers and whether the F-35B will actually be suitable. It will be suitable in terms of being launched off the aircraft carrier, but will all that have to be changed and will there be another procurement difficulty with that?
The report on the Army’s armoured vehicle capability published a few months ago says:
“This report reveals a woeful story of bureaucratic procrastination, military indecision, financial mismanagement and general ineptitude, which have … bedevilled attempts to properly re-equip the British Army”.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was at a committee meeting in your Lordships’ House last week where this was discussed in the context of the Ajax contract. The Public Accounts Committee published a report on 3 June 2022 which pointed to a £5.5 billion contract with General Dynamics, with an initial order for 589 Ajax armoured fighting vehicles that were supposed to be in service in 2017. But by December 2021, at a cost of £3.2 billion, the department had received 26 vehicles, none of which can be used. Maybe now the Government will have to scrap that and move to a Warrior replacement.
So, all these different things are going on, and, again, the Government say that they have sorted these issues. However, I had a quick look and found The Treatment of Contracted Staff for the MoD’s Ancillary Services, another recent report by the Defence Committee from May of this year, which said:
“Outsourcing ancillary services has become commonplace in the Ministry of Defence … If an activity is not a core part of the MoD it is liable to be outsourced. For example, catering, vehicle maintenance and firefighting are liable to be outsourced. However, despite the billions of pounds spent on outsourcing, this is a relatively unscrutinised area. The MoD’s outsourcing practice is not exemplary. Outsourcing appears to be the default position, with little consideration given to providing services in-house. Contractors drop standards and squeeze employees to raise their profit margin, but the MoD is not always willing to step in and enforce the expected standards. It is an absurd state of affairs that the MoD is not allowed to look at a contractor’s previous performance when assessing their bid—a state of affairs that needs to be rectified immediately.”
Yet when we have asked Ministers about excluded contracts, excluded suppliers and what is going to be looked at, we have been reassured that the Procurement Bill will mean that a contractor’s previous performance will be looked at, and that if its bid is not up to scratch or not what you would expect, that supplier can be excluded. However, we read in a May 2022 report from the Defence Select Committee that the MoD is not allowed to look at a contractor’s previous performance when assessing its bid. So, is the Defence Select Committee wrong, or is the Bill wrong? It would be useful for us to hear from the Minister whether the MoD is allowed to look at a contractor’s previous performance, and whether it has or has not.
I have been speaking for a few minutes and I do not want to speak for any longer than that. I have tried to use contracts run by the Ministry of Defence to give some examples of appalling contract management. I have seen the response that the Government sent back to the committee, which says, “We’re dealing with all of these. We don’t agree with the committee; essentially, it is wrong on some aspects of this, but we agree with it on others. We are doing all sorts to tackle this”.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has made a telling and persuasive case. I hope it will convince the Committee to support the tenor of Amendment 485 in particular; I added my name to it on Friday last. I strongly agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, are arguing for in that amendment, specifically on the role of the National Audit Office; it is long overdue.
I want to develop the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, a little further for the Committee. Here are some headline points: £4.8 billion has been wasted on cancelled contracts since 2010. Some £5.6 billion has been overspent on MoD projects since 2010, and £71 million spent on unplanned life extensions. Some £2.6 billion has been wasted on write-offs: there are 20 cases of wastage by write-off in the report that was referred to, contributing to some £2.6 billion—or 20% of total wastage—since 2010. Some £64 million has been wasted on admin errors, including £32.6 million in HM Treasury fines almost uniquely imposed on the Ministry of Defence for poor accountancy practices.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the ongoing International Relations and Defence Select Committee inquiry into future defence policies, not least on procurement; indeed, I mentioned at Second Reading on this Bill. Last week, we heard from Professor John Louth, who was the director of RUSI’s defence, industries and society research programme from 2011 to 2019. Today, he is a private sector consultant. He shared several important insights into the peculiarities and particularities of defence procurement, not least the need to work with significant uncertainty, because of the speed with which technology moves, and how to strike a reasonable balance between insisting on value for money and having appropriate flexibility. The committee also explored associated issues, such as whether there is an optimal balance between indigenous development and off-the-shelf purchases in defence procurement; what considerations would have to be made; how the Government would intervene to prioritise them; how much of our defence capability needs to be supplied by the state itself, and what can and should be sourced from private suppliers; and who the legitimate partners are in the UK’s defence enterprise—manifestly not companies owned or controlled by countries such as Russia or China.
It was clear that there were other factors which distort procurement in the case of defence contracts. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, enjoys the sympathy and understanding of this Committee that it is not an easy world in which to operate. Professor Louth suggested to our Select Committee last week that there had been some successes, mainly around innovation. However, when asked about this Bill, specifically the measures before us now, he said:
“I tried to read as much into the Bill as possible. But it proved hard to identify the end state which the Government was looking for”—
the very point the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, just made. Professor Louth continued:
“Seeing the approach as an attempt to streamline is sensible but we need an Act that identifies the sharing of risk. There are lines and lines of rhetoric; lines and lines of legal reform—some of it incomprehensible even for those of us who are academics.”
He saw the Bill and its provisions as a missed opportunity, saying that
“quite often the private sector does things best and mixing it directly with what the state does would help enormously.”
He pointed to a high degree of private wealth that is funding our defence research and emerging capabilities but said we would get more value for money if a combined commitment was identifiable.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to Ajax. During last week’s Select Committee proceedings, I asked Professor Louth about this, to which he replied,
“Ajax has been a disaster.”
As we heard from the noble Lord, in June the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee warned about the delays to Ajax, a programme which has already been running for 12 years, a point picked up in this admirable amendment about projects that overrun and the costs to the public purse. It said, and I am sure we all agree, that this risks national security and compromises the position of our defences.
Ajax was intended to produce a state-of-the-art reconnaissance vehicle for the Army. It has cost a staggering £3.2 billion to date and yet it has failed so far to deliver a single deployable vehicle—not one. The vehicles were supposed to enter service in 2017, but Ajax has been subject to what the Commons committee describes as “a litany of failures.” The failures included noise and vibration problems that injured soldiers who were testing the vehicles. As the MoD has been unable to say, even now, when Ajax will enter service, perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us whether she has any further information on that, whether the safety issues have been resolved and if it is likely that they will ever be resolved.
Last week, I reminded our Select Committee that the Public Accounts Committee says the programme has been “flawed from the outset”, but also said it was illustrative of a deeper failing, commenting that the MoD had
“once again made fundamental mistakes”
in the planning and management of a major defence programme. Pulling no punches, it accused the Ministry of Defence of “failing to deliver” vehicles which the Armed Forces need to
“better protect the nation and meet … NATO commitments.”
In the current situation, with one eye eastwards on Ukraine, this is a very serious statement by a senior committee of this Parliament.
Meg Hillier, who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, spelled it out in these terms:
“Enough is enough—the MoD must fix or fail this programme, before more risk to our national security and more billions of taxpayers’ money wasted. These repeated failures … are putting strain on older capabilities which are overdue for replacement and are directly threatening the safety of our service people and their ability to protect the nation and meet NATO commitments.”
Some 324 hulls for Ajax-family vehicles have been built, along with 74 turrets, and 26 vehicles have been handed over to the Army for training purposes. The PAC report points to “operational compromises” which the Army has been forced to make, which include the prolonging of the use of ageing Warrior armoured vehicles which came into service back in 1987 and are expensive to maintain.
In total, the contract with General Dynamics is worth £5.5 billion, and the PAC says that it doubts whether the programme can be delivered within existing arrangements. We have a duty to make a forensic examination of what Professor Louth told us in the International Relations and Defence Committee last week has been a “disaster” and what lessons might be applied via this Bill, especially lessons about poor project management and inadequate contract performance, soaring costs and lengthy delays even before contacts were signed.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the same issues have been raised again and again in various attempts to reform procurement. This has all been at great cost to the public purse and, as I have argued, at a risk to our national security. This Bill should be much clearer about how it intends to put flesh on the bones of a strategic relationship with industry, focusing on delivery within the budget and on time. What a pity it is that this Bill is not in draft before both Houses, being examined by parliamentarians during pre-legislative scrutiny, rather than being placed in the context of the many other diverse issues that we have been considering.
In conclusion, Ajax was a heroic figure from Homer’s Iliad. Apart from Agamemnon, he was the only principal character who received no substantial assistance from any of the gods—perhaps they will come to the aid of the Minister today. She can at least be heartened that Poseidon struck Ajax with his staff, renewed his strength and joined in Ajax’s prayer to Zeus to remove the fog of battle to see more clearly the light of day. I have no doubt that the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, will do precisely that. I hope we will lift the fog and support these amendments.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 485. I will also speak to Amendment 101, which was not signed by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, although there is clearly some interest in the issue of whether we use British suppliers for defence. There were some reservations from the trade team, the international team and the business team about whether we should be focusing solely on looking at British suppliers for defence contracts.
One particular question I would like the Minister to consider, which may be something on which the Labour Front Bench also has view, links to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about whether it is more appropriate to have bespoke defence contracts or whether sometimes it is better to have off-the-shelf procurement. In that context, I would very much like to hear the Minister’s response to Amendment 101.
The reason for not signing this amendment was not that we do not support British industry; clearly there are a huge number of opportunities in particular where we might be looking for small and medium-sized enterprises to be very closely involved in the delivery of defence contracts. Most of the high-level contracts we have talking about—the catastrophe of Ajax, the major extensions, the cost and time overruns and the failures of defence procurement—are about the high-level programmes, but there will be many subcontracts within them. Trying to support our small and medium-sized enterprises is clearly desirable. If there is a way of doing that, alongside ensuring best value for money, there could be some interest in this amendment. However, it needs a lot more exploration and perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, it would have been better having pre-legislative scrutiny to explore how we look at procurement.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, stole many of my lines, including many of the notes I made during, and the points I raised at, Second Reading, to which the Minister did not have the opportunity to reply, because her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord True, was responding instead. In line with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I am very much looking forward to hearing a series of answers from the Minister which will enable us to understand in what way this Bill is intended to help defence procurement. In many ways, the idea of having a single Bill that deals with all types of procurement is superficially very attractive, yet, as the Grand Committee has already heard, it is not clear in any way, shape or form how this Bill is going to improve defence procurement.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
I am endeavouring, my Lords, not to tip my water down the back of my noble friend’s neck, although he might welcome that refreshment.
First, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I am in no doubt about the genuine interest which your Lordships have in defence. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, articulately expressed that, and I respect that. I thank him for the way in which he expressed his sentiments. I know that he speaks for the other contributors to the debate.
I shall try to address the principal points which have come up, so I want in the first instance to address Amendments 101 and 485 and then proceed to speak to the government amendments in the group, Amendments 520 to 526 inclusive. As I have said, I shall endeavour to address the issues which have been raised.
I turn to Amendments 101 and 485, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and, in relation to Amendment 485, also by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. They relate specifically to defence and security contracts and Ministry of Defence procurement.
Amendment 101 would require a contracting authority to disregard any tender from a supplier which is not a supplier from the United Kingdom or a treaty state or which intends to subcontract the performance of all or part of a contract to such a supplier unless there is no other tender that satisfies all the award criteria. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which is laudable, but I will explain why I think this amendment is neither necessary nor indeed desirable.
The Bill already provides a discretion for the contracting authority to exclude from procurements suppliers that are not treaty state suppliers and extends this to the subcontracting of all or part of the performance of the contract to such suppliers. This includes defence and security procurements. It is important to note that, for the majority of defence and security procurement, market access is guaranteed only to suppliers from the United Kingdom, Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories. For those procurements, a supplier established in another country would not be a “treaty state supplier”.
However, due to the nature of defence procurement and the defence market, a discretion to go outside of UK suppliers or treaty state suppliers is required where doing so would best meet the requirement that the contract is to serve—there may be an immediacy about that—and would offer best value for money. Further, to exclude non-treaty state subcontractors would probably make some defence and security procurement much less effective and, in some cases inoperable, as it would exclude, for example, suppliers from the United States, Australia, France, Sweden or Canada from the supply chain.
I assure noble Lords that industrial consequences and commercial strategies will be given case-by-case consideration—that is already how we conduct business—taking into account various factors, including the markets concerned, the technology we are seeking, our national security requirements and the opportunities to work with international partners, before we decide the correct approach to through-life acquisition of any given capability. Where, for national security reasons, we need industrial capability to be provided onshore or where we need to exclude a particular supplier on national security grounds, we will not hesitate to make that a requirement.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised the specific matter of fleet solid support ships. He will be aware that in the refreshed National Shipbuilding Strategy there is specific reference to the fleet solid support ships. The procurement is in train; the first ship is scheduled to enter into service in 2028 and the last in 2032. I hope that reassures the noble Lord that the matter is under active consideration.
I turn now to Amendment 485. In a sense, this amendment was preceded by a general observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. In essence it was: what difference does this make? That is a fair question and one that deserves an answer. I would say that the Bill provides greater flexibility to the MoD and includes the use of a single system to encourage participation by small and medium-sized enterprises. That is an area not just of significance to the economy but of particular significance to such smaller entrepreneurial organisations. They have sometimes felt out in the cold when major contracts were being awarded by the MoD, principally because, traditionally, the structure was to have a very large primary contractor, with the primary contractor subcontracting various aspects. This is designed to encourage greater participation by small and medium-sized enterprises, which I think is to be applauded.
MoD derogations, and the Bill itself, provide more flexibility to deliver the defence industrial strategy—I will not rehearse that; your Lordships are familiar with it, but I think it is a very positive strategy and one which I think received support from across the Chamber. That strategy replaces the previous defence procurement policy of defaulting to international competition. I know that was of concern to many of your Lordships and, as I say, the strategy has altered that, and I think that is important reassurance on where we are in defence and the greater flexibility we now have. That is why I said earlier that industrial consequences and commercial strategies will be given much more case-by-case consideration, taking into account the various factors which I previously mentioned.
Amendment 485 would require the Ministry of Defence to commission a report from the National Audit Office setting out instances of procurement overspend, withdrawal or scrapping of assets, termination of pre-paid services, cancellation or extensions of contracts, or administrative errors with negative financial impacts. I would suggest the amendment is unnecessary, as what it seeks to achieve is already being delivered through existing processes or initiatives; let me explain what these are.
The National Audit Office already conducts regular audits across defence, which we know to our discomfort because the National Audit Office is an independent entity in that it does not spare its comments when it comes to the MoD, and that is right—that is exactly what it is there to do. In these audits, it regularly includes recommendations for improvement to which we pay very close attention. These include value-for-money studies, such as the yearly audit on the defence equipment plan, regular audits on defence programmes such as Ajax—which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned—and carrier strike, as well as financial audits. As I say, MoD pays close attention to what the NAO says.
The Infrastructure and Projects Authority also publishes an annual report. That tracks progress of projects currently in the Government Major Projects Portfolio and it provides an analysis of how they are performing. The MoD has successfully introduced several initiatives following on from such recommendations to improve capability and deliver and obtain better value for money, including the defence and security industrial strategy, the defence and security 2025 strategy and the introduction of the Single Source Contracts Regulations 2014.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. On the question of the National Audit Office, I was wondering whether the Minister could tell us whether there had been any formal discussions between her department and the NAO about whether something more formalised—as anticipated in the amendment before your Lordships—would be beneficial. If not, might she consider having such a discussion before we return to this issue on Report?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
What I think is important is that we accord the National Audit Office the absolutely critical character of independence, which is necessary for it to do the job it does. I think that part of that independence is that it is quite separate from government departments, and, with the greatest respect, I think that is what the MoD should not be doing. The National Audit Office should be saying, “If we think you’ve got dirt lying under the carpet, we’re going to rip the carpet up and have a look at the dirt”, and I think that is the freedom we expect the National Audit Office to have and that is the freedom it has got. As I say, everyone, I think, will understand that the Ministry of Defence knows well the feeling of being on the receiving end of a National Audit Office report which makes uncomfortable reading.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has spoken about the legislation giving the MoD greater flexibility, but following up from her response to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to what extent does it enhance accountability, which is at the crux of what we have all been asking about?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble Baroness will be aware, the National Audit Office reports not to the MoD; it reports to Parliament. It is a very powerful line of accountability that introduces the legitimacy in any democratic society for elected parliamentarians—or Members of this House—to ask on the basis of a report what the department has been doing. It has never inhibited Members of the other place or Members of this House from doing just that, as your Lordships are very well aware.
The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Coaker, raised particularly the very legitimate question of what we are doing within the MoD to try to improve our procurement performance. I think your Lordships will understand that, probably more than any other department, the Ministry of Defence carries out massive procurement contracts. Then again, that is a very justifiable reason for asking us to demonstrate that we are doing that effectively and efficiently, being fair to the taxpayer and to our industry partners.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Will the Minister address the point about the treatment of contracted staff for the MoD’s ancillary services? I will just remind her that the Defence Select Committee report published recently says in its summary:
“It is an absurd state of affairs that the MoD is not allowed to look at a contractor’s previous performance when assessing their bid—a state of affairs that needs to be rectified immediately.”
Will the Procurement Bill rectify what the Defence Select Committee says is an appalling state of affairs that the supplier’s previous performance cannot be looked at?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My understanding is that the Government’s response has been framed to that report and is currently under review. I have no more up to date information, but I will write to the noble Lord. The department is under an obligation to respond to that proposal.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Government cannot answer the point about whether the Procurement Bill will allow the MoD to look at a contractor’s previous performance when assessing its bid—a state of affairs that needs to be rectified immediately. Every time we have talked about what is an excluded supplier or an excludable supplier, we have been told that previous performance is one of the criteria that can be looked at, yet from what the Defence Select Committee said, and the Minister just said, is that it is not clear whether the MoD can do that.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Well, yes, within the law the MoD can, and this Bill provides more flexibility for past performance to be taken into account. However, there are legal constraints which govern how any party entering into a contract can responsibly consider previous conduct. The Bill allows the MoD to exclude a supplier, and there are various grounds in the Bill to clarify when the MoD can make such a decision. Our view is that there is the necessary flexibility within the Bill. The Government will be looking at the observations of the Committee.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
It would be really helpful if the Minister, as she suggested, wrote to me and copied it to noble Lords in the Committee, because she said it was not allowed and then she said it was allowed, but the Defence Select Committee report, which was published just a few weeks ago, said the MoD was not allowed to look at a contractor’s previous performance when assessing its bid. So either the Defence Select Committee is wrong, or the MoD has changed the regulations or the Bill changes the regulations. All I am trying to seek is what the situation actually is.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
What I said to the noble Lord was that, as happens with any committee report, the department is preparing a response to the committee, and that is currently being done. I do not want to pre-empt that, but, when the response has been submitted to the committee, it will for the committee to determine whether it wants to make that response public.
On the issue that is perplexing the noble Lord and causing him anxiety, we believe that the Bill as drafted gives the MoD the power to exclude suppliers if we have reservations.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, when the noble Baroness is writing to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, could she undertake to clarify which point of this Bill deals with the issue, so that Members can look and assess whether we believe it is adequate, or whether a further set of amendments might need to be brought forward on Report?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
There is a part of the Bill that allows the Secretary of State to exclude a supplier; that is a specific provision in the Bill. Where defence and security contracts are concerned, I think these are powerful provisions. I am very happy to take the advice of my officials and see if I can clarify the position further for your Lordships’ Committee.
Moving on, government Amendments 520 to 526, to which I referred earlier, are what I would describe roughly as Schedule 10 amendments. Schedule 10 amends the Defence Reform Act 2014 principally to enable reforms to the Single Source Contract Regulations 2014. The regulations are working well to deliver their objectives of ensuring value for money for the taxpayer and a fair price for industry. That is the balance against which we always have to work. Delivering the Defence and Security Industrial Strategy and building on experience since 2014 means that some reforms are needed. This will ensure that the regulations continue to deliver in traditional defence contracts and can be applied across the breadth of single-source defence work in the future, providing value for money for the taxpayer while ensuring that the UK defence sector remains an attractive place in which to invest.
We are making two government amendments to Schedule 10 which will clarify the wording and deliver the full policy intent. The first relates to paragraphs 3(2) and 3(8) of Schedule 10, where we are increasing the flexibility of the regime by taking a power to enable contracts to be considered in distinct components—this is an important development—allowing different profit rates to be applied to different parts of a contract where that makes sense. Secondly, we are simplifying the contract negotiation process by an amendment to paragraph 8(3)(a) of Schedule 10, which ensures that the contract better reflects the financial risks involved, and in paragraph 8(3)(c) of Schedule 10, taking a power that will clarify how the incentive adjustments should be applied. We are clarifying the wording currently in paragraph 8(3)(c), which will become paragraph 8(3)(ea)—I am sorry that is a little complicated; it is just to achieve accuracy of reference—by government amendment in Committee to ensure that the schedule fully delivers the policy intent.
In short, these government amendments provide improved clarity and greater flexibility in the defence procurement process, and I hope your Lordships will be minded to support them.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that informative reply, and I look forward to the letter to clarify the point that we had some discussion on. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Alton; I knew that he had signed the amendment and forgot to mention it. It is in my notes: “Don’t forget Lord Alton”—and I did. I apologise for that but thank him for his support.
For reasons of allowing us to move on to the next group, which I know a number of noble Lords are waiting to discuss, I would just say that Amendment 101 is almost like an encouraging amendment; it is trying to encourage the Government to do more. I accept what the noble Baroness said with respect to contracts and some of the difficulties that there are—to be fair, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised that as well. The amendment is just an attempt to ask whether we can do a bit more to support our own industry and small and medium-sized enterprises. I know that the noble Baroness agrees with that and will take it on board.
As far as Amendment 485 is concerned, we need to look at what the noble Baroness has said, look again at the Bill and reflect on it. The important part of Amendment 485, as usual, is tucked away. Proposed new subsection (4) says:
“The Secretary of State must commission the National Audit Office to conduct a similar review annually.”
It is that continual microscope that is needed. I accept the point that the National Audit Office can conduct the reports and that it is independent. I accept all those sorts of things; the noble Baroness is right about that. I just think that all of us want to get this right. Therefore, that point about an annual review is particularly important. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
“(4A) In this Act, a reference to a contracting authority’s requirements is a reference to requirements described in the tender notice or associated tender documents (see section 20(5) and (6)).”
“(a) satisfy the contracting authority’s requirements, and(b) ”
“in each case, at the point of assessment.”
“(5) A tender notice or associated tender document must detail the goods, services or works required by the contracting authority.(6) In detailing its requirements, a contracting authority must be satisfied that they—(a) are sufficiently clear and specific, and(b) do not break the rules on technical specifications in section 24.”
“(ba) take account of the environmental impact of the award,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a contracting authority to be satisfied that the award criteria take account of environmental impact.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, although I am not moving Amendment 124A, I just thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for speaking to the amendment in my absence.
“(A1) This section applies in relation to—(a) a competitive tendering procedure;(b) an award of a public contract in accordance with a framework;(c) a process to become a member of a dynamic market.”
“(b) documents inviting suppliers to participate in a competitive selection process under a framework, including details of the process, any conditions of participation or criteria for the award of the contract;(c) documents inviting suppliers to apply for membership of a dynamic market, including any conditions of membership;”
“(a) notify the supplier of its intention to disregard, and(b) ”
“(a) notify the supplier of its intention, and(b) ”
“(A1) A contracting authority must as part of a competitive tendering procedure—(a) request information about whether a supplier intends to sub-contract the performance of all or part of the public contract, and(b) seek to determine whether any intended sub-contractor is on the debarment list.”
“(a) notify the supplier of its intention, and(b) ”
“(3) The reference in subsection (2) to a contracting authority notifying a supplier of its intention is a reference to notification in accordance with section 26(3), 27(4) or 28(4).”
Lord Mendelsohn
“(d) a supplier is not a signatory of good standing on the Prompt Payment Code.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would strengthen requirements of good practice and simplify checking processes for all contracts either under this Act or in the open market.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I think the phrase in a situation like that is “follow that”; that was an impressive performance by the chair.
In moving Amendment 174, I will speak to Amendment 317 in this rather interesting little group. The amendments I propose relate to the Prompt Payment Code. Amendment 174 aims to ensure that suppliers are signatories to the code and of good standing; and to ensure their exclusion in government procurement if they are not of good standing, not signatories to the code or have been subject to an investigation and not done the right thing having been found wanting.
I suggest these amendments for three reasons. First, the Prompt Payment Code offers a public and obvious ease of reference for any public authority or anyone involved in public procurement, even just checking the process. The real value of what the Government have done in increasing its resourcing and housing it with the Small Business Commissioner is that it makes it much easier to use it as a reference point. Making sure that you have something clear, public, available and transparent is of great use.
Secondly, it is worth acknowledging that the Government have taken steps to try to encourage a more effective Prompt Payment Code by creating a series of initiatives that came into force this year to encourage much stronger compliance with good payment terms. We do not talk just about late payments, of course, because there has been a greater imposition of long payment terms; the Prompt Payment Code has reduced those. Also, it starts to help clarify the problems that are now being felt by many where either an agreed contract is delayed or payments are reduced post hoc, with only one side making that conclusion using the asymmetries of power.
Those initiatives on the Prompt Payment Code have been welcome. In September 2019, the Government made an announcement about the importance of how people pay for government contracts, including how they must pay within the right payment terms and on the right timescale. It is useful that all these initiatives are brought together quite nicely—as I say, they are publicly available—through the code so that we have one reference point.
However, it is important to start introducing these measures together because all of them constantly need strengthening. The Government’s attempt to use their new code to make sure that suppliers cascade the money to all the people who are due has faced difficulties because master contracts are now used so that the main supplier to the Government can say that it discharged its duty easily while all the other payments are held up by people who pay the next layer. Those dates have then been massively extended, as we have seen.
Indeed, it is not as if the Prompt Payment Code is immune to certain problems. For that reason, it is important that the Government show their full commitment to it and use it most effectively to encourage those are not doing the right thing on payment terms. The members of the Prompt Payment Code pay better but the difference between them and those who are not members is widening, although the code has a huge advantage. It is also clear that what was hoped—that the code would be some sort of cultural change or even encourage people to do more of the right thing—is not happening. We are starting to see that the Prompt Payment Code is something that companies find easy to evade. The idea of naming and shaming does not seem to have much significance.
I say this because we have seen a series of substantial, prodigious suppliers to government walk out on the Prompt Payment Code. They include some of Britain’s biggest companies. Tesco left because the code’s definition of a small business did not correspond to how it viewed a small supplier. Recently, in only the past few months, two of the top five Britain-based listed companies—that is, two of our largest companies by market capitalisation—have left the code: Unilever and Diageo. The culture of compliance is not there. We must reinforce the mechanisms that we use to ensure that, across the chain, prompt payment and good payment terms are properly enforced.
We now know the costs of this. We have always talked about the costs and consequences, about the number of businesses that are at stress, but we also now know the benefits. The recent report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research—Cebr—said that, if invoices were paid as they were presented, small businesses would increase their turnover by £40 billion to £60 billion. That shows, as always, the importance of the velocity of cash.
If the Government can play an enhanced role in making sure that payment terms are done properly across any procurement in the public sector, and can encourage the private sector in all of its transactions to do the right thing, this will be extremely useful. Bringing the Prompt Payment Code into the canon of law for public procurement will be a very important and useful step in that regard.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to both of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. Until he performed his remarkable imitation of a human ping-pong ball, I was all ready to introduce the amendment on his behalf. I am very relieved that he made it back from the Schools Bill just in time and has relieved me of the necessity of saying almost anything at all, other than to give full support to his amendments.
These two amendments would ensure consistency and complementarity between the provisions of this Bill and those of the code, while also having the positive effect of encouraging more potential suppliers of government contracts to sign up to the code and, indeed, to abide by its requirements. I very much support the noble Lord in everything he has said and in saving me the trouble of saying it.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I rise to introduce Amendment 353, tabled in my name and in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, demonstrating cross-party support for this amendment. I also want to underline my gratitude to the Government for seriously engaging with this amendment to the Bill; I know that we share a desire to mitigate the two key risk areas in public procurement which this amendment covers, and I am grateful for their engagement.
Amendment 353 seeks to give the Government two things: first, it seeks to provide the tools to monitor and control the UK’s dependency on authoritarian states; and, secondly, it seeks to ensure a consistent approach to modern slavery across all government procurement. So let us look at how it seeks to monitor and control the UK’s dependency on authoritarian states first. Clause 1 places a burden on the Secretary of State to create regulations that reduce the dependency of public bodies on authoritarian states. There is no agreed definition of what constitutes an authoritarian state in UK law or regulation, therefore Clause 2 adopts the categorisations contained within the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, allowing for the legislation to adapt to contemporary geopolitical developments in line with the latest iteration of the review. The countries this amendment would currently apply to as threats are Iran, Russia, North Korea, and, as a systemic competitor, China.
It should be noted that Clause 1 applies to all goods and services which originate in whole or in part in one of the named countries. The amendment is constructed to apply not solely to entire products but also to their constituent parts. So, for example, where a solar panel has been constructed in the UK but relies on polysilicon from another region of the world categorised as a threat or a systemic competitor, that solar panel would, therefore, be within scope of these regulations.
Clause 3 sets out what must be included in the regulations. So, proposed subsection (3)(a) provides for an annual review of dependency to be published by the Government, while proposed subsection (3)(b) requires the Government to define “dependency” and to establish acceptable levels of dependency across industries. Proposed subsection (3)(b) also seeks to appreciate that the risks associated with dependency vary across products and industries. For example, reliance on one region for semiconductors presents very different challenges for resilience from reliance on another region for PPE. So proposed subsection (3)(b) allows the Government the flexibility to take these nuances into account.
Yet the risks of economic dependency are not the only relevant matter here. The second part of this amendment, proposed new subsections (4) and (5), addresses a separate issue: the question of modern slavery in the supply chains of publicly procured goods. The presence of modern slavery in supply chains is clearly unacceptable. This has rightly been acknowledged by the Department of Health and Social Care, which has already taken steps in the Health and Care Act to eradicate from its supply chains goods which have been “tainted”—its word—by slavery. Proposed new subsection (4) adopts substantially the same language as Section 81 of the Health and Care Act, passed earlier this year. The requirement to bring regulations to, in the Department of Health and Social Care’s words, “eradicate” from public contracts goods and services “tainted” by slavery now stands as part of that Act.
When the Health and Care Act regulations are drawn up and passed, those procuring health equipment will have to apply different human rights standards from those procuring goods and services on behalf of other departments, as things currently stand. The main intention of this amendment is to ensure that the UK Government speak with one voice and apply these standards across government. It seems odd for us to be unwilling to procure goods from Xinjiang for the NHS but comfortable doing so for Defra. This is about correcting a loophole in the law and seems to be a matter of simple common sense.
In addition, paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of proposed new subsection (5) provide improvements on the current modern slavery framework. I particularly commend to the Minister (5)(d), which will improve standards of disclosure and transparency by requiring firms to provide evidence and trace their full supply chain if necessary. Requiring public disclosure of supply chains will considerably improve compliance when compared with the current audit measurements. This is because it is difficult to conduct a credible audit in an authoritarian state. In this context, it is better to know where companies are sourcing from, rather than have an auditor who has no ability to get accurate information.
In conclusion, the two risk areas of economic dependency and modern-day slavery cut to the heart of our character as a nation. We want to stand as a beacon for liberal, democratic values around the world. To do this, we need to ensure we retain the autonomy to act in line with our values by reducing dependency on authoritarian states. We need to ensure that we are living consistently within our values by ensuring there is no modern slavery in our supply chains. The Department of Health and Social Care has shown the way; this amendment enables the rest of government to come into line.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the speech from the noble Baroness. It was compelling and I hope the Minister will find it so too. I wish to speak to Amendments 184 and 187 in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Hendy, Lady Wheatcroft and Lord Kerslake, to whom I am most grateful. These amendments grant Ministers the power to bar companies which have acted unlawfully or unethically from tendering for public contracts. It is hard to understand why that will not be acceptable to the Government.
The two amendments have the same objective but use different means. Amendment 184 requires a statutory instrument for Ministers to act to bar companies in that way, whereas Amendment 187 enables a quicker route but one that is capable of being challenged if any party considered that the Government had acted unjustifiably. As I say, it is hard to see why the noble Lord, Lord True, would not accept both amendments with acclamation.
It will come as no surprise to either him or many of your Lordships that the particular target I have in mind and which I am angry Ministers have been so shamefully slow and negligent about—despite the generous remarks about me from the noble Lord, Lord True, in the Chamber following a Question I asked, for which I am grateful and thank him—is Bain & Company. I first raised this scandal in your Lordships’ House nearly six months ago and have tried to get the Government to act on it by barring Bain from accessing public contracts.
It is a global brand and presents itself as reputable global consultancy operating right across the world. Bain has its second-largest office here in London, which has been awarded multimillion recent UK government contracts and has influence across our economy, so this company is particular to us. We should take account of the fact that in South Africa Bain purposefully assisted former President Jacob Zuma to organise his decade of barefaced looting and corruption, the company earning fees estimated at £l00 million or 2 billion rand from state institutions.
South Africa’s state capture commission, a judicial inquiry headed by Chief Justice Zondo, which recently concluded its work, and to which I gave written and oral evidence in November 2019, condemned Bain’s deliberate immobilising of the South African Revenue Service—SARS—as “unlawful”. So concerned is the commission with Bain’s illegal behaviour in the South African public sector that it has recommended that law enforcement authorities examine every public sector contract Bain has had, not just the SARS one, with a view to prosecution.
The Zondo report was devastating about Bain’s behaviour. The evidence,
“bears out the pattern of procurement corruption which has dominated the evidence heard by this Commission. These include … the collusion in the award of the contract between Bain and Mr Moyane”—
he was President Zuma’s crony put in to head SARS and effectively dismember it—
“the irregular use of confinement and condonation to avoid open competition, transparency and scrutiny … and the use of consultants to justify changes that were necessary to advance the capture of SARS.”
As expected there has been an upswell of civil society opposition to Bain’s continued presence in that country. Such public pressure recently forced Bain to withdraw from South Africa’s largest business association in disgrace.
These findings and events are devastating indictments of a company which operates at and influences the highest level of civil service and business around the world, including profitably from our own Government’s contracts for many years, and relies on the trust of its clients to deliver social and economic value.
Yet in South Africa, Bain used its expertise not to enhance the functioning of a world-renowned tax authority, as SARS was acknowledged to be, but to disable its ability to collect taxes and pursue tax evaders, some of them former President Zuma’s mates, all in the service of its corrupt paymasters. The very company which possessed the expertise to bolster South Africa’s defences against the ravages of state capture in fact weakened these defences and profited from it, yet this is the very company that works across our government and economy in the UK, influencing our public institutions and impacting millions of British lives.
Bain would have us believe that what happened in South Africa was the work of one rotten apple, but its South African office’s work was endorsed by leaders in London at the time and in its US headquarters in Boston, and many senior people currently working for Bain in London were in the South African business during the corrupt President Zuma era. Some of the very people who broke public procurement rules, colluded with Zuma and committed a “premeditated offensive” against SARS, as an earlier judicial commission described Bain’s actions, are now working in Bain’s London office through which it consults to our public institutions and businesses, including government departments.
We are not only dealing with the matter of to whom we pay taxpayers’ money, although that is a major issue; what should make us shudder is that we allow these people into the inner workings of our public institutions, including government departments. A company has demonstrated a propensity to act selfishly in its own commercial interest at the expense of public good. This is what Bain South Africa did, and it led to the devastation that followed. This is a warning to us all.
Given the scandalous collusion of Bain UK and Bain USA, I am asking that the UK Government and the US Government immediately suspend all public sector contracts with Bain and bar it from entering any new contracts. I wrote to the Prime Minister in February of this year requesting this, which resulted in Cabinet Office officials meeting with Bain. Subsequent to this meeting, the right honourable Jacob Rees-Mogg wrote to me in March this year and was clearly swayed by Bain’s superficial internal changes and repayment of only a tiny fraction of the fees that it had earned from South African public sector contracts in the corrupt Zuma era. Using weasel words, he assured me:
“The Cabinet Office continues to monitor the situation and will engage with Bain & Co again … to determine the most appropriate set of actions.”
To date, I have not heard anything about what has resulted from this monitoring or what set of actions has been determined. It sounds to me like Ministers are shelving any action, which is disgraceful if true, although I am encouraged that Mr Rees-Mogg has now invited me to meet him this Wednesday to discuss these matters.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 353, introduced by my noble friend Lady Stroud.
As many of your Lordships know, the United Kingdom is a signatory to the Council of Europe’s anti-trafficking convention, an international treaty that affects Europe and beyond, with Israel having acceded a short while ago as the second non-member state of the Council of Europe. Last week, on 13 July, its Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings—GRETA —published its annual report for 2021. In December last year, a number of recommendations were adopted, based on the evaluation report produced for the United Kingdom, among other states. Certainly our Modern Slavery Act 2015 has enabled the United Kingdom to take a lead internationally.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on his excellent recent Council of Europe report, Concerted Action Against Human Trafficking and the Smuggling of Migrants. The prospect of concerted action has been assisted, not least by our 2015 Act along with other steps taken by the UK Government to prevent and eradicate human trafficking from businesses and supply chains, including in the public sector.
Migrants and refugees are clearly a particularly vulnerable group of people who fall prey to human traffickers far too often. The Russian war on Ukraine has displaced more than 10 million people, and 5.5 million Ukrainians have been recorded across Europe since 24 February. They constitute a vast group of potential victims, having fled shelling, bombardment and occupation by the Russian army; hence all the more so is there a compelling case for linking human trafficking and modern slavery with making provisions for reducing the dependency of public bodies on goods and services that originate in a country considered by the United Kingdom as either a systemic competitor or a threat.
In that context, with this legislation, Amendment 353 in the names of my noble friend Lady Stroud and others is much to be welcomed. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I am introducing Amendments 310, 318 and 322. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
My amendments follow on a lot from things that have already been mentioned. They are designed to remedy what appears to be a significant inequity in the treatment of environmental offences relative to other offences listed in Schedules 6 and 7, which relate to mandatory and discretionary exclusion grounds. In Schedule 6, there is no mention of mandatory exclusions for environmental offences. Apparently, no environmental offence, however serious or wide-reaching in its impact on people’s health or finances or the wider environment, currently merits mandatory exclusion. In contrast, almost any offence in relation to employment agency law, common law or tax, however minor, triggers mandatory exclusion.
In Schedule 7 there are grounds for discretionary exclusion on environmental misconduct, but let us work through the terms of that exclusion. First, the authority is required to ignore any event predating the coming into force of the schedule. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has tabled an amendment to query that proposal, and I will be interested in the Minister’s response to her. I also note that the reference to an event rather than an offence seems to leave the contracting authority in doubt about whether they must exclude convictions for environmental offences after the date of coming into force where the conduct took place.
Secondly, the contracting authority has to decide whether the conduct caused or had the potential to cause significant harm to the environment. I would be very interested to hear about the breaches which are serious enough to result in convictions for offences—not, as I understand it, simple enforcement notices or civil penalties but actual offences—but do not even have the potential to cause significant harm to the environment. Still, the legislation erects an additional hurdle for contracting authorities with absolutely no clarity about what an insignificant offence looks like or why it is an offence if it is insignificant.
Thirdly, the contracting authority must consider whether the circumstances giving rise to the application of the exclusion are likely to recur. I do not believe that this is the Government’s intention, but if we wanted a regime which gave a surface-level semblance of treating environmental offences seriously in public procurement while making contracting authorities extremely reluctant in practice ever to exclude any supplier on environmental grounds, we have done it really well. However, I believe that that is not the Government’s intention, so I have tabled this amendment to achieve what I believe is needed and meant.
Amendment 310 makes an offence under any provision of environmental law subject to mandatory rather than discretionary exclusion. There is no judgment to be made about the potential for causing significant harm where there has been an environmental offence. An additional effect of this drafting is that the contracting authority would be required to disregard only offences that took place longer ago than the default position—set out in paragraph 42 of Schedule 6—of five years.
Amendment 318 provides a definition of environmental law, which is currently missing from the Bill. It is taken from last year’s Environment Act, Amendment 322 removes the existing discretionary exclusions in Schedule 7, as previously described. This is a modest proposal. It would mean that contracting authorities would receive clarity that convictions for offences against a defined range of environmental law in the past five years would always be grounds for mandatory exclusion. However, contractors would not necessarily be excluded out of hand. Contracting authorities would still have to give consideration to the likelihood of the circumstances occurring again or, if the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Fox, are accepted, the contractor would need to demonstrate this to everyone’s satisfaction.
Neither do the amendments I am speaking to create new burdens on contracting authorities; they merely replace an unclear discretionary exclusion with a clearer one. Authorities which intended never to give a moment’s consideration to contractors’ environmental records—which is what happens now—or to the possibility of excluding firms in any circumstances would now need to do a small amount of work in identifying whether convictions had taken place. I assume that the noble Lord, Lord True, would welcome that increased diligence and consideration. However, contracting authorities which did take their responsibilities seriously would now not need to worry about venturing out on an unguided journey into deciding whether a breach was significant. This seems far closer to the vision of procurement set out in the procurement Green Paper, which referred to the environment as one of the Government’s strategic policy priorities and specifically referenced a supplier’s plans for achieving environmental targets across its operations as an example that the switch to considering bids on the basis of most advantageous tender would deliver. It is also closer to the Bill’s Explanatory Notes, which refer to simplifying the procurement process and making it more transparent. Finally, it is closer to the vision that the noble Lord, Lord True, set out at Second Reading, which was quicker and simpler and better meets the needs of the UK.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Boycott and to associate myself with the remarks she has just made, and also with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who made an important contribution to the proceedings of the Committee this afternoon. We will all be interested to hear how his meeting with the right honourable Jacob Rees-Mogg goes on Wednesday.
I shall speak to Amendments 331 and 353. Amendment 331 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Bethell and Lord Fox, deals with serious human rights abuses. When the Minister responds I hope he will bear in mind the very helpful conversations he and I had when he agreed to meet me to discuss modern-day slavery and genocide. I should mention that I am a trustee of the anti-modern-day-slavery charity the Arise Foundation and a patron of Coalition for Genocide Response.
It concerns me that the word “genocide” has been put in a list that simply states that
“‘serious human rights abuses’ includes, but is not limited to”,
and then sets out a list from (a) to (f). It is not that any of these things are minor questions. Winston Churchill said that the horrors committed during the Nazi regime constituted a crime that had no name. It took Raphael Lemkin, the Jewish Polish lawyer, to create the name “genocide” to describe what had been done. Indeed, the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide came from that. Your Lordships will recall that the amendments to earlier legislation I moved specifically on the procurement of technology via Huawei and later on the Health and Care Bill, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, referred to, were careful to set aside the word “genocide” from other questions.
I have one specific and, I hope, helpful remark to make to the noble Baroness and others, which is that if this amendment is to be pursued later, perhaps these questions can be separated, because there are many people who would be willing to vote on genocide not only in your Lordships’ House but in another place but who would not be willing to support something that was simply a list of serious human rights violations. I think that some further thought should be given to that.
On Amendment 353 on supply chain resilience against economic coercion and slavery, I shall try to be brief because I set out some of the arguments about this in our earlier debate about Hikvision and the role that companies such as that have played throughout procurement processes. They are surely what the Bill is dealing with, yet they operate with impunity from their base inside the People’s Republic of China and have been directly associated with the enormities that have been committed in Xinjiang, where it is estimated that more than 1 million Uighurs are held in concentration camps. All of us have read appalling accounts of their treatment, and anything we can do at any stage, we should try to do. I know that the noble Lord, Lord True, is sympathetic to this argument.
Therefore, let me briefly set out some of the arguments that have perhaps been put to him by officials or others who would oppose the excellent amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and me. First, will this not have a chilling effect on government procurement? Yes, there will be a chilling effect on government procurement of slave-made goods—and so there should be. Businesses that do not rely on slavery for sourcing have absolutely nothing to fear. The amendment sets the bar low but establishes certain minimum standards. It is noteworthy that the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act goes much further than this proposal—I drew it to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord True, during our discussions—and there has been no “chilling effect” documented in the USA. I will add that that legislation enjoyed significant bipartisan and bicameral support in the United States.
Secondly, will this not discourage competition and therefore crush markets? No. On the contrary, the amendment will incentivise business to raise its human rights game and encourage competition among entities which meet basic human rights standards. We should be using our purchasing power, this phenomenal amount of money, more than £300 billion, to nudge the business world. This amendment helps us to achieve that. It removes disadvantage for lawful performers, and that is something we should all welcome.
Thirdly, is this not just another anti-China amendment? No. The amendment does not even mention China. Forced labour is a global issue, whether it is exploitation in Brazilian mines or Malaysian tech factories or indeed Uighur slave labour. It is morally imperative that taxpayers’ money does not fund slavery, wherever it is and wherever it is practised.
Fourthly, does this not turn civil servants into police for business supply chains? Civil servants already assess those bidding for government contracts against certain criteria, and that is exactly how it should be. All the amendment seeks to do is to make the criteria more robust. Civil servants generally do not have the resources to inspect supply chains. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, probably knows better than any other noble Lord in this Committee, assessing what is going on in a supply chain is an extraordinarily complex, time-consuming and resource-ridden process. The amendment recognises that, and seeks instead to provide civil servants with more tools to ensure better anti-slavery standards around disclosure and transparency of sourcing inputs.
I wonder whether the noble Lord has had it put to him that we are presuming the guilt of businesses by blacklisting entire countries or areas. No, the amendment does not presume that a business operating in a particular area is de facto guilty of perpetrating slavery, although this is the assumption of the United States legislation, which imposes a rebuttable presumption. I admit that that is something that I personally favour, but it is not what is in the amendment. In the United States, that targets goods produced in the Uighur region because it is assumed that they are tainted.
I was struck that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, referred to that word when discussing earlier legislation the House passed, the Health and Care Act, which includes the word “tainted”. I think the Minister will forgive me for saying that that legislation was strengthened by civil servants from his department, who gave advice to the Department of Health. It would be absurd to have legislation that applies purely to the National Health Service, despite the fact that we spent £10 billion on PPE, but does not apply to other departments. You cannot have legislation, especially a procurement Bill, which is weaker than legislation already on the statute book. The amendment merely requires that the origins of goods and their constituent parts are disclosed.
What difference will this really make? Do we need more regulation? The Health and Care Bill was amended precisely because there was acceptance—the Government knew—that the existing regulation was not strong enough. It is to the credit of Sajid Javid that he recognised that and did something about it. The Government are widely suspected of procuring goods and services that may be tainted with slavery. In 2020, the Daily Telegraph reported that, for one contract alone, £150 million of PPE originated in factories in the Uighur region with a documented slavery problem. If stronger standards are good enough for the Department of Health and Social Care, they are surely strong enough for the whole of government, and this Bill gives us the opportunity to do something about it.
Finally, it is often said, “Not this Bill, not this time. There is a modern slavery Bill coming; why can we not just wait for that?” The amendment before your Lordships addresses government procurement and this is the Procurement Bill. It is entirely appropriate that an amendment seeking to improve certain standards regarding government procurement should be debated during the passage of this Bill. Moreover, we do not know what is likely to be in the modern slavery Bill; we were told a lot about it during the course of the Nationality and Borders Bill, which pre-empted its provisions then, but we still do not know what will be in it—and, after all, we are in the midst of a change of Government.
Engagement with the Government and this Secretary of State has been good and, as I finish, I pay tribute again to the noble Lord, Lord True, for his patience in putting up with representations constantly being made to him on this subject. But there is no guarantee that will continue. While Ministers smile on these efforts, we are keen to make the progress we can now, while Ministers such as the noble Lord are in place.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have two small amendments in this group, Amendments 330 and 332. I must say that this group contains far too many issues to be debated effectively. My own are minor, so I did not degroup them, but I hope that in future other noble Lords will exercise their right to degroup so that we have sensible groupings to enable a proper Committee debate. I will probably get into trouble with my Chief Whip for encouraging noble Lords in this direction, because I think there is a view that large groupings are more efficient. However, I do not believe that; I believe in effective scrutiny in your Lordships’ House.
Amendment 330 probes the relationship between the mandatory exclusion of suppliers for improper behaviour in Clause 30 and the discretionary exclusion found in paragraph 14 of Schedule 7. I do not understand why the Bill has to have improper behaviour as an exclusion ground dealt with in two places. The definition of “improper behaviour” is virtually identical in each case, and they certainly seem to be aimed at the same behaviour. The processes are very similar, with rights given to suppliers in both cases, and they are both aimed at exclusion decisions. There are wording differences between the two parts of the Bill, but I cannot see anything of substance involved. It just looks as if two parliamentary draftsmen have been involved in different bits of the Bill and they have not known what was going on in the other bit.
Schedule 7 requires only that the decision-maker—which is usually the contracting authority, as in Clause 30—“considers” that there is improper behaviour, while Clause 30 requires a determination. However, in this context, I cannot believe that that is a distinction with any real difference attached to it. The main difference of substance is that Clause 30 results in mandatory exclusion, while paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 does not necessarily lead to exclusion. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can explain the subtleties of why improper behaviour has been dealt with in this way. My own view is that it would be easier to understand if Clause 30 were placed in the Schedules 6 and 7 structure of the Bill, since it deals with exclusion, and could have options of mandatory or discretionary exclusion. I certainly look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say on that.
Amendment 332 is slightly different; it concerns paragraph 16 of Schedule 7, which itself sets out exclusions from the discretionary exclusions in Schedule 7. Under paragraph 16(4), there are four exclusions from some of the Schedule 7 things which have happened before the schedule came into force. It is my understanding that the existing procurement rules already contain three of the grounds for exclusion. So it does not seem logical that, when we shift to this new Procurement Bill, we disregard things that happened in the past that were exclusion grounds because they happened before the Act came into force—it seems to be an unnecessary discontinuity.
I believe that the new ground is “national security”, under paragraph 16(4)(d). For that, it is probably reasonable to disregard behaviour that occurred prior to the Act coming into force. I invite my noble friend the Minister to explain the logic behind paragraph 16(4).
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I will speak to Amendment 353, to which I am a co-signatory, and in passing to Amendment 331. Perhaps surprisingly, my first comment will be to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. As we were listening to the various interventions and the introduction of various amendments, my sense was that we were trying to debate too many things in one group. In particular, when I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, I thought that hers were very interesting amendments but that they were not really related to some of the issues associated with modern slavery, genocide and human rights that we were thinking about. I would also like to the irritate the Whips by suggesting that a little more degrouping might be beneficial in future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, introduced Amendment 353 in considerable detail, and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, then elaborated on it further. At this point, I do not want to go into further detail but to press the Minister on whether the Government would not see that it is appropriate to extend what the Department of Health and Social Care has done with the Health and Social Care Act to ensure that there is transparency in supply chains and that we do everything possible to ensure that genocide and modern slavery are excluded. Other noble Lords have provided the reasons why that is so important. I would hope to give the Minister plenty of time in which to respond.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I have listened to the debate and rise to address the Question that Schedules 6 and 7 be agreed. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Moylan, although he cannot be here today.
As the Committee knows, I speak from the perspective of someone who has worked in business and as a company secretary and a chair of the compliance committee in a British multinational business employing half a million people in several regions of the world, as well as in smaller for-profit and not-for-profit operations. I have also worked in government as a civil servant and a Minister. I worry intensely about the perverse effects of these provisions. My fear is that they will exclude good, dynamic and honest operators from contracts and serving the public good through procurement. Some firms and social enterprises could be put out of business. Many others, especially SMEs, will be persuaded to have nothing to do with procurement; and of course this Bill is immensely wide-ranging and covers at least £300 billion-worth of UK value added, including most utilities, which I have argued against.
The lists in Schedules 6 and 7 are very wide. Some exclusions are entirely new compared to the EU law they replace. Others have been promoted from the discretionary category to become mandatory. The new mandatory exclusions include corporate manslaughter, theft and fraud, and failure to co-operate. Schedule 6 also brings into the Bill offences in areas including money laundering and competition law, which are dealt with perfectly well in existing and separate regulations. There have also been several extensions to the grounds for discretionary exclusions; for example, a breach of contract, poor performance and “acting improperly in procurement”—goodness knows what that means.
I ask the Minister to think again about every new item and consider whether this gold-plating is justified, as I think it may be in the case, for example, of national security, assuming that is not covered in other regulations. Each and every firm and social enterprise will be involved in more red tape in having to verify compliance with every item across their organisation.
Clause 54, defining excluded suppliers, is key, so I want to play devil’s advocate. First, it gives contracting authorities a lot of discretion, so they can be difficult if they want to favour a particular bidder. Secondly, a mandatory exclusion applies to a supplier or an associated supplier, so compliance checks have to be spread into the nooks and crannies of their supply chains, over which prime suppliers have no direct control—that will help the French, by the way, who have more integrated supply chains. Finally, if there is a contravention such as a tragic manslaughter on a major building project, a theft or a fraud, a single conviction for modern slavery, or a tax or cartel offence a firm is pushed into settling by the regulators, that firm will then have to operate a tick-box system across all its operations to demonstrate in the words of Clause 54 that the circumstances giving rise to the application of the exclusion are not “likely to occur again”. How will they be able to do that?
Of course, I am against most of the evils listed in the schedules, but they do not need to be in this statute. In trying to do the job of the policemen, we risk seriously undermining the procurement sector and choking it with red tape. If we want to nationalise procurement, we should be more honest about it.
For large companies in many climes, compliance with these two schedules will be a nightmare, so they could decide not to bid and stick to non-public sector activities. Firms focused on procurement alone will be in constant fear of a contravention which will write off the value of their company, as they would be excluded from bidding in future, although officials reassured me that they would be allowed in again after five years.
This is not the public sector; a company cannot hang around for five years without any new business. I know from my own experience that small firms may be put off completely. We will see the loss of small suppliers to prisons, local authorities, transport systems and even defence, as we have already seen in the City and in housing because of complex regulation in financial services and delays in planning. Small firms do not have the risk capital needed to operate in such high-risk environments. This negative behavioural change is not costed in the impact assessment, although there is a brief non-monetised discussion on page 36. My concerns about Schedules 6 and 7 are not discussed at all; more unscrutinised guidance is suggested as the answer.
I feel that this is cross-compliance of the worst sort. It is inconsistent with a productive economy, and the people who will flourish will be lawyers and their counterparts in the public sector trying to apply these complex, wide-ranging regulations. I think that the schedules will have chilling effect. I ask my noble friend the Minister to look at both schedules again in the light of my comments on practicality, and devise arrangements that will avoid the perverse effects I have outlined.
As regards the other amendments, as I think I am speaking last, we had a good debate on small business last week, for which the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, was sadly absent. I think we all agreed that it is an area that needs to be looked at again. However, for the reasons I have stated, I am a little nervous about a further exclusion to achieve the noble Lord’s objective, as proposed in Amendment 174, but we must come back to this issue.
As to further extending exclusions by SI, as proposed in Amendment 184, this is far too wide-ranging and vague, and could be abused. It could also cast yet a further chill on procurement by honest and good organisations and lead to retaliation against our own UK exporters. The more political we make procurement, the less vibrant the sector will be, hitting our growth and productivity, which already sadly lags behind that of many other countries. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, can find another way forward at his prospective meeting with the Minister of State.
My questions about compliance and resources also apply to Amendment 353, however well intentioned. I worry a bit that we are over-influenced by our experience on PPE, which was poor. However, we are now looking forward, of course, not backward. I am sorry to be critical.
In conclusion, there are many problems with this Bill. The easiest and best thing would be for it to be withdrawn, to look at the various points that have been made in recent days, and for the new Government to think again. In the meantime, I stand by the points that I have made as a practitioner.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
I just want to respond to my noble friend’s comments about Amendment 353 and underline a comment that my noble friend Lord Alton made. Actually, this is something that has already been done in the United States of America; there is already an Act that has been passed there. There has no chilling effect at all on government procurement. In fact, their Act is significantly stronger than anything we are proposing here. I ask my noble friend to be mindful of that. Companies are appreciating more and more being able to be confident and to tell their customers that they are in fact free of slavery in their supply chains.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The point is well made. I would be interested to know how long that Act has been in operation in the United States. One of the concerns I have had, looking at these various provisions in all their complexity, is that we are actually continuing relatively new EU requirements; they came into our law between 2014 and 2016 with a directive and a number of regulations. I am not clear to what extent they have been reviewed to be effective. You need them to be fair and effective, and you need to consider the people who are excluded as well as those who happily champion them—as one does if one works for a big multinational; I have worked for one. My comments are intended to encourage the Committee to look at the detail to ensure that perverse effects are minimised and excluded where they can be.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating discussion on a number of amendments that are grouped around what I would call value-based procurement. The values should allow £300 billion of taxpayers’ money to be used to create good business and a solid foundation. We wish to see public money spent in a way that is based on the values we hold as a nation, not just in the UK but elsewhere.
It was interesting listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who just said very distinctly that a value-based approach could have the effect of destroying competitiveness and productivity for certain companies and exclude them. All the businesses I have worked with—big ones, small ones, social enterprises, small and medium-sized enterprises—want a nudge from government at times to be able to do the right things. When the Government nudge in their procurement, they send a signal to the market that enables business to make decisions based on things other than the bottom line. I tend to find that that is a useful thing for them, rather than a negative thing. Therefore, I think that value-based procurement is really important.
I start by speaking to Amendment 331, signed by my noble friend Lord Fox—as you can see, I am struggling so I will not go on at great length, like the Minister did last week. Clause 59 creates a centralised debarment list that allows Ministers to prohibit suppliers from contracting with public bodies if they fall under the certain exclusionary grounds in Schedules 6 and 7. However, a supplier’s involvement with serious human rights abuses is not listed even as a discretionary ground for exclusion. I am sure that that is an omission by the Government and not a deliberate exclusion. Human rights abuses should be on the face of the Bill as a reason for debarment. You can argue whether it should be mandatory or discretionary—personally, I would like it to be mandatory—but it has to be at least discretionary. The purpose of this amendment is to allow Ministers to debar companies that have proven involvement with serious human rights abuses. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said about listing genocide there.
I have a particular interest in Gulf states, particularly human rights abuses in Bahrain. I could keep the Committee for hours on the significant human rights abuses in that country. A number of companies in the UK, both large and small, trade with some of the organisations that are directly linked to human rights abuses in Bahrain. However, under this Bill on public sector procurement, there would be no way of debarring them, even though these companies are sponsoring or are directly involved in working with organisations that are implicated in death, torture and the deprivation of liberty—for at least 20 years, in some cases. So I ask the Minister: why is this exclusion there? Has there been an oversight in not having human rights abuses on the face of the Bill?
I come to a couple of the other amendments that noble Lords have addressed. Amendments 174 and 179 on payment are really interesting and quite important, because cash flow is king, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. Within the Bill are assumptions about 30-day payments to public sector organisations. There is an implied assumption in the Bill that the same subcontracting arrangements will take place between the major contractor and the subcontractor, but there is no mechanism for sanctions if that does not happen. That is why I think Amendments 174 and 179 are an interesting way of saying that there will be sanctions, in debarring people from getting public sector contracts.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will try to be reasonably brief in summing up some of the points made. I start by welcoming my noble friend’s Amendment 174 about late payment. It is a point he has made continually and this important amendment should not get lost in these great debates about serious international issues. His point about trying to support small and medium-sized businesses through dealing with late payments deals with the point that my noble friend Lady Hayman and I are also trying to deal with in Amendment 179. I would not want that to get lost.
In speaking to Amendment 329, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hayman, and Amendment 331, in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Hayman, and the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Fox, I want to wrestle with whether the group is too big or not. At its heart it has the discussion and debate we have had through the Committee—and no doubt will have again on Report, when there will be votes on it—which is on what the Government are trying to achieve through their procurement policy. We are saying that, as well as being efficient, effective, value for money and all those things, there are certain social, economic and other objectives that the Government should also pursue. When we look at this group of amendments, which is about exclusion grounds, a whole range of different issues can be raised to say that, if a firm or supplier does this, it should be excluded from consideration when the contracting authority comes to make its procurement decisions.
Maybe the Government will say that these amendments are not necessary and that they do not want to add them to the Bill. A question then arises for the Minister—I do not believe he believes in accepting serious human rights abuses. If that is not going to be put in the Procurement Bill, how will the Government pursue their objective of trying to do something about serious human rights abuses through the Bill or will they not? Will they just leave it to the market to do?
That is the point of Amendment 331, which my noble friend Lady Hayman, the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Fox, and I have put down. We have listed just some of the grounds, and we think that, if a supplier is guilty of those human rights abuses as listed in the amendment, and others, the contracting authority should not procure from them. If that is not the right way of going about it, how will the Government ensure that contracting authorities do not purchase from those who have been guilty of serious human rights abuses such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, forced sterilisation and so on? I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that perhaps genocide needs taking from that; that may be helpful and is obviously something that can be looked at.
It is not just us in this Committee; the Foreign Affairs Committee has also said that the Government and the contracting authority need to take these things into account when it comes to purchasing. The Government’s response to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, published in November, says:
“The forthcoming Public Procurement Bill will further strengthen the ability of public sector bodies to disqualify suppliers from bidding for contracts where they have a history of misconduct, including forced labour or modern slavery.”
There is a lot of pressure from lots of different bodies to do something about this.
I thought my noble friend Lord Hain made a brilliant speech on his Amendments 184 and 187. He talked about Bain with respect to South Africa. If his amendments are not the right way of going about things, what will the Government do about it? These are the Committee’s questions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, made a very important point about environmental considerations in Amendment 310 and so on. The Government will say, “We are very concerned about the environment; we agree with the thrust of the amendment.” If that is true, and the amendment is not going to be accepted and go into the Bill, how will that aim be achieved? That is certainly the frustration that I feel, and I want the Minister to answer on how it will be achieved if this is not in the Bill.
I come to Amendment 353 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and me. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, also came in on that. I thank him for his kind remarks about my report at the Council of Europe; I appreciated that. That amendment is, again, about supply chains and how we ensure that contracting authorities do not contract with those who have modern slavery, exploitation and all those things that we would object to within their supply chains. If the Government do not agree with Amendment 353 and think it is unnecessary, how are they going to achieve what that amendment seeks to achieve? That is an important question for the Government to answer.
In other words, why are all the amendments in this group unnecessary? Why do they not matter? Why are they irrelevant? Why do we not need them in the Bill? How will the Government achieve all these objectives if they are going to say that all these amendments are not acceptable?
On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, made—she also picked up one or two of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made—Schedules 6 and 7 are massive. To be frank about it, whatever the rights and wrongs of those schedules, they have huge implications. All I want to ask the Minister is: how have the lists in Schedules 6 and 7 both been arrived at?
You could pick up a number of examples. Why, for example, does Schedule 7(15) set out a discretionary ground for exclusion for threats to national security? I find that quite difficult to understand. No doubt there is a good reason for it but you would have thought that a national security threat would be a mandatory ground for exclusion. The reason is probably in there somewhere but I could not find it. If you look at Schedule 7, there is a whole list of slavery and trafficking offences that are discretionary. It might be that they should be so but you would have to do a lot to convince the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and me—let alone the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud—that they should be discretionary.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, noted, whatever the rights and wrongs of these schedules and whether they should be there or not, how have the lists been arrived at? The purpose of Committee is to try to understand what the Government are doing so that, on Report, we can make our minds up on whether amendments that can be voted on should be taken forward.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for taking up the point about the extent of the schedules and the shared detail that people who are procuring—they are sometimes quite small organisations —will have to comply with. We have also heard that there will be guidance, so not only do you have the nightmare of a complicated Bill with rules that are different from the EU ones that, with great difficulty, people have become used to; you also have extra guidance that I do not suppose will be scrutinised by Parliament. That creates further difficulties for the people on the receiving end who are trying to do a good job. I emphasise that I am as keen as anybody to have companies doing the right thing but we have to find a way of getting this through, in not too complex a fashion, so that this can go forward smoothly.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is a point well made. Indeed, the whole issue of the increase in the use of regulations by the Government is something that various Select Committees and other committees have commented on. It is a real difficulty because you do not know what the regulations will be. The legislation just gives the power to the Secretary of State to make regulations; you then wonder what they will be.
If I understood her amendment right, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked why some provisions in the schedules, perhaps really important ones, do not apply if a supplier contravenes them before the Bill becomes an Act. It strikes me that the self-cleansing we talked about earlier would have to be pretty dramatic if, on 26 February 2023, a firm was found guilty of breaking some of the mandatory conditions laid out in Schedule 6 then, on 3 March, it said it had dealt with those but you could not take into account the five days before when it had broken a lot of the conditions because it was before the Bill become an Act. Is that really what the Government intend? I am not sure because, when I read it, I could not quite make this out. I think that the point of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is to try to understand exactly what the Government are getting at. What does “before” mean? There are a range of things in that.
The central point I want to make in speaking to our various amendments is that, if all these things are unnecessary around all these things that are really important, how are the Government going to achieve these objectives, many of which are part of their own policies? Many of us wish to see the Procurement Bill used as the vehicle to achieve that but the Government are resisting, and will resist, that. How will they be achieved if not through this Bill?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there is a wide gamut of public policy that enables a Government to achieve the objectives on which they stood for office; that is a broader philosophical argument. I am not certain whether the noble Lord opposite wishes to have more in Schedules 6 and 7—he has certainly mentioned one aspect—or whether he makes a plea that something should be taken out. If the Labour Party wants to make a submission to change things and excise individual aspects of Schedules 6 and 7, no doubt we will look at that as our discussion advances in Committee.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As it is still Committee, can I just ask a question about tax and competition offences? I am not clear whether those are forward-looking or backward-looking, so if you are a company that, for example, has had a competition or a cartel offence—a minor offence in a subsidiary—are you saying that those groups will be on a debarment list and can no longer be engaged? Similarly, if somebody has had a tax argument, which people have had in the past, and that has been settled—I think there have been some big brands in the past, not that I have been involved, that have had such settlements—are we somehow now saying that those are pariahs, and they are not allowed to engage in procurement for the future? I would just like to be clear about this because my worry is about the perverse effects of this debarment list you are going to have.
Lord True (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. There are elements in here which are looking back and there are elements which are about the present. Legal issues are raised here, and it is important that I come to my noble friend and the Committee with a very specific definition and response to her question in relation to tax and finances.
Amendments 174 and 317 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and Amendment 179 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, seek to bring matters related to prompt payment performance into scope of the supplier exclusion regime. Prompt payment is important; it is lifeblood, in many cases, to small enterprises. The Government are committed to ensuring prompt payment of suppliers, and there are a number of ways in which the Bill does this. For example, 30-day payment terms will apply throughout the public sector supply chain, regardless of whether they are expressly written into the contract. In addition, payment performance can be assessed as part of the award criteria, providing it is proportionate and relevant to the contract.
The Government encourage suppliers to sign up to the Prompt Payment Code. However, we submit that requiring every potential bidder to become a signatory to the Prompt Payment Code is too onerous on some suppliers and would discourage them from bidding, undermining the ability of contracting authorities to achieve value for money.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, with support from others, proposed Amendments 184 and 187, which seek powers for Ministers to exclude suppliers which have acted in any way unlawfully or unethically. The noble Lord was abundantly clear about what he had in mind when he spoke to his amendments, although he did not stop there; he made broader points about multinational behaviour which I also listened to and took in. We believe that, in the way the proposal is drafted, the threshold is too low for such a serious measure of acting in any way unlawfully or unethically. Exclusion should be reserved for suppliers which pose a serious risk to contracting authorities or the public. We believe that it is also appropriate that the decision to exclude suppliers falls in general to the contracting authority running a procurement.
However, the exclusion grounds cover unethical conduct. Any serious breach of ethical or professional standards applicable to a supplier is deemed to be professional misconduct, whether or not those standards are mandatory. The noble Lord will be pleased to know that professional misconduct is a ground where a debarment case could be made, as drafted in Schedule 7, paragraph 12(1), although I make it clear that I am not commenting on any individual case. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, told the Committee, I understand that he is meeting my right honourable friend the Minister to discuss this issue. The review led by Cabinet Office officials into the case that he asked for—and indeed the Prime Minister instructed to be done—is now complete and is currently being considered by the Minister. Unfortunately, I cannot say any more at this stage.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister. I will not detain the Committee, except to say that I find it hard to understand that a company that has clearly acted unlawfully, let alone unethically, in another country simply lines up with the rest for government tenders. I do not understand how that is consistent with honest business practice, let alone honest government practice.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord made a strong case on this before. He has repeated it in a shorter version. I have told the Committee that the review has been conducted, as he—and the Prime Minister—asked. That is now complete, so let us see what happens. I cannot give any more detail because I simply do not know it as I stand here. The new debarment list will allow Ministers to debar suppliers in the most serious cases and therefore there is no need to make the additional provision.
Amendments 310, 318 and 322 tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Young, seek to add conviction of any environmental offence as a ground for mandatory exclusion. The mandatory grounds for exclusion are by nature a blunt instrument. They require the supplier to face exclusion from every public contract for five years, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe pointed out, unless and until the risk of the issues reoccurring has been addressed. For this reason, they are reserved for the most serious forms of misconduct.
The inclusion of environmental offences in the discretionary ground reflects the fact that, for offences where a range of misconduct may be involved, it may be appropriate to take into account factors such as the nature of the contract being tendered or the level of environmental harm caused, before deciding to exclude a supplier. There is guidance from the Environment Agency on what constitutes environmental harm.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, proposed Amendment 329, which seeks to introduce a discretionary exclusion ground where a supplier’s tender violates applicable obligations in the fields of environmental, social and labour law. I have already explained why we elected to narrow the exclusion ground relating to breaches of such law.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I have listened very carefully to the description the noble Lord has given. Exactly the same kind of provisions exist in states which do torture, where there are no laws or treaties that those states uphold. So, what is the difference between modern slavery and torture when they take place in a state where the laws and the regime that rules that state do not protect its citizens from either?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I referred to the position where there may be no relevant national laws. The Government’s submission is that this Bill greatly strengthens the defences we have against modern slavery and the vile abuse of individuals in these circumstances. As I said, this will apply whether or not there has been a conviction or a breach of an international treaty.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
On modern slavery, the Minister is surely saying that there has to have been a conviction for somebody to be on the debarred list. The first person prosecuted under the Modern Slavery Act—I almost hesitate to say this—was Sainsbury, so they had a case against them. Sorry, I am just trying to understand this; is the Minister saying that they would therefore be on the debarment list? I do not think that is the intention.
Lord True (Con)
No: I said that the current rules are too weak. They do require the supplier to have been convicted. I am saying that we are moving beyond that to a different evidential base and test. I recognise the strength of feeling among noble Lords on this issue. I commit to engaging further with my noble friend and other Members of the Committee on this prior to Report. On that basis, I respectfully request that these amendments are not pursued.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, that was the very definition of a wide-ranging debate. I do not want to delay the Committee for too long, but I must just say that I appreciate the difficult hand that the Minister is having to play at this stage. I reflect on the fact that I have been in this House for just over eight years, and during that time, there is not a single piece of legislation I have been involved with that has been delivered with the intention that the Ministers wanted. All have failed for one reason or the other, and all are coming up for some form of revision at different points. It seems to me that yet again we have a problem in drafting and delivery that will bedevil this Bill as it goes on.
I also have to say that I do not really think it is that radical a Bill. As the chairman of a public limited company, I think that the Government, who have been pressing the corporate sector to take ESG and other matters more seriously, have been leap-frogged by the private sector and are quite behind. There can be a better process in thinking this through to delivery—one that either takes a different form of comply or explain, or other sorts of things—but the Bill is starting to get to the point where it does not really address the issues or create good behaviour. In the end, we are going to end up with an overreliance on decisions made by people who I suspect have not really seen how these things work in real life. So, while I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, I think it is important to understand that over time we may live to regret quite a few of the provisions we have put in this Bill.
(a) treat the supplier as an excluded supplier for the purpose of assessing tenders under section 18, and(b) exclude the supplier from participating in, or progressing as part of, any competitive tendering procedure.”
House of Lords
Economic Downturn
Lord Haskel
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of forecasts of an economic downturn later this year, and what steps they are taking in response.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Her Majesty’s Government do not prepare forecasts for the UK economy. In March, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility forecast growth of 0.3% and 0.2% for the third and fourth quarters. Recognising that the economic outlook has become more challenging since the OBR produced its forecast, in May the Government pledged a further £15 billion of support to help maintain consumer spending and head off the risk of an economic downturn.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
The Minister has not mentioned rising inflation, rising hardship and inequality, low growth and productivity, strikes, a fuel crisis and, especially today, climate change. All tell us that the outlook is dire. What are we going to do about it? Judging by the Tory leadership hustings, we are going to cut taxes and cut public spending, either now or later. No wonder the Conservative-dominated House of Commons Treasury Committee accused Ministers of a
“lack of long-term thinking in economic strategy”.
Those whom we rely on to invest and grow the economy do not make decisions based on headline tax rates and soundbites. Even though we only have a caretaker Government, will the Minister urge her colleagues to start thinking through a proper strategy to deal with this economic crisis, or simply adopt Labour’s strategy?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, there was quite a lot in that question. I am not sure that the noble Lord listened to my initial Answer, where I referenced the support that the Government are providing to help people with the cost of living. That was extended by £15 billion in May, but of course previous support was announced, which takes that to £37 billion. He mentioned a long-term plan for economic growth, which is exactly what the Government have. At spending review 2020-21, we made a landmark investment in capital projects and we are increasing public investment in R&D to £20 billion a year by 2024-25. Those are just two of the measures that we are taking to support our economy.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, since our economy is facing a major backlog in almost every government department, is this not the time for our great public servants to be reminded that they are there to serve the public and in particular our business community—for instance, on passports, trade and business? Can we please ask them at this time to remove the backlogs that they are performing on at the moment?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I think that our public servants have at the forefront of their minds when they do their jobs the service that they give to the public. My noble friend refers to backlogs. I am not sure quite which ones he is referring to. My noble friend is beside me and she would say that there are no backlogs in passport processing, and that applies to a number of other government services too. There are in the NHS—we absolutely acknowledge that—but the Government have a plan to deal with that.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister remain committed to the assertion by the former Levelling Up Secretary, Michael Gove MP, that levelling up may be more difficult in a time of economic hardship but that it is even more important to tackle regional equality and that investment must continue to be made to be able to do that?
Baroness Penn (Con)
This Government are absolutely committed to levelling up. The former Levelling Up Secretary did an excellent job, but that commitment does not change with his departure.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
The Recruitment & Employment Confederation found that the UK could lose up to £39 billion a year from 2024 if we do not resolve labour and skills shortages. What is the Government’s future workforce strategy? If the Minister tells me that there is one, could she indicate where to find it, because nobody, including industry, can seem to locate the bones or the substance of such a strategy?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, there are several prongs to that, one of which we discussed during the passage of the skills Bill, which the Parliament has just enacted, including increases in investment in skills and working with employers to ensure that the qualifications meet their needs. As part of that work, the Department for Education is also working with employers to look forward to what future skills the country will need.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, we all agree that soaring inflation is a great threat to the economy and is, without a shadow of doubt, fuelling the cost of living crisis, but new research from my union, Unite, shows that it is being driven by corporate profiteering and some greed, with profit margins of the FTSE 350 firms now 73% higher than pre-pandemic. What is stopping the Government bringing in a windfall tax on all companies found to be profiteering or price gouging, not just the oil and gas companies, as currently proposed?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Bank of England’s independent Monetary Policy Committee said in its recent report that the vast majority of the increase in inflation over the past year reflects the impact of sharp increases in global energy and tradeable goods prices. On increases in energy prices, we have introduced the energy profits levy, and more than the amount that will be raised through that levy is being returned to households through our cost of living support.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that the great success in this country of the unicorns—greater than that in Germany, France and Israel combined—could be enhanced with the relaxation of the EU state aid rules, particularly on EIS and SEIS companies?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My noble friend is right that the UK remains a great place to start a business and we will always want to make sure that our tax regime is incentivising businesses to start here. I am sure that he would agree that measures such as the super-deduction are a great initiative to help support that.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what she has discerned, having watched the interviews with the candidates to be Prime Minister, about their long-term thinking? None of them has talked about climate change. Is it not time, particularly on a day like this, that we started thinking about the need to travel less, to use less water in due course and to eat less? There is a whole range of areas where we need to do less, not more. When will we start that kind of debate and thinking?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I was doing some other things this weekend, such as celebrating my daughter’s first birthday, and I will not comment on the leadership race. The noble Lord raised the need to have greater hybrid working, for example, and to look for other opportunities for efficiency in our economy and I absolutely agree with him on that.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that real economic growth will prove almost impossible in the long term while our workforce remains more than 1 million short? Given the current leadership debate, how long will we have to wait until the Government take action to address this growing labour crisis?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I reassure noble Lords that they will not have to wait at all. We are investing in skills across the range of our workforce to ensure that those who are out of work, or in work where they could be making better use of their skills, can find those opportunities. We need to encourage people back into the workforce—for example, older workers who moved out of the workforce during the pandemic—and we need to use migration in a targeted way to ensure that we get the right skills that this country needs.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, media reports suggest that Ministers are to launch a multibillion pound business loan scheme in an attempt to counter a looming recession. Can the Minister confirm whether an announcement will be made to Parliament before the Summer Recess? Can she also confirm what measures, if any, are being put in place to avoid the level of fraud seen under the Covid support schemes?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am not aware of any such plans, but I reassure the noble Lord on his question about fraud. In the Spring Statement, the former Chancellor announced a range of resources for the Government’s counterfraud function to ensure that measures to counter fraud are designed into programmes from the very start. I know that the context for the question is the bounce-back loan scheme and I remind noble Lords about the need for speed in getting support to businesses at the time of the pandemic.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, one way to help with the cost of living is to bring down prices by removing tariffs. We still have tariffs that fall heavily on clothing, footwear and foodstuffs. Those hit people with the lowest incomes hardest, because they have to spend a higher percentage of their income on those basic commodities. Could we not scrap some of those tariffs or, if we absolutely must indulge the idea that that would mean some kind of disarmament in advance of trade talks, could we not suspend them for 24 months during the cost of living crisis, with an option to renew at the end?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am not aware of any plans to take up my noble friend’s suggestion, but I will take it back to the Treasury. He will know that the Government are focused on increasing opportunities for trade deals and free trade to bring down those barriers and bring down costs to consumers in the long term.
European Convention on Human Rights
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Convention on Human Rights.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
Her Majesty’s Government are committed to remaining a state party to the European Convention on Human Rights and protecting all the rights set out in the convention.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, when the European Court of Human Rights halted the deportation of migrants to Rwanda, the Prime Minister and some of his government colleagues began considering withdrawing the United Kingdom from the European Convention on Human Rights. The convention is a major contributor to peace and democracy, and we cannot afford not to be part of it. However, if the Government will insist on pushing ahead with this reckless decision—and we have not had a denial from some of the candidates in the leadership race—is the Minister confident that such a move will not negatively impact the rights of vulnerable groups in the United Kingdom?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Her Majesty’s Government, with respect, are not pushing ahead with any reckless decision. The policy of the Government is to remain within the convention on human rights; speculation to the contrary is quite unfounded.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has been asked this Question many times and has said that it is the Government’s policy to remain inside the ECHR. However, scepticism and questions persist because a senior government Minister, the Attorney-General, has a number of times over the last week said that she wants to withdraw from the ECHR. What conversations has the Minister had with the Attorney-General in the last few days to resolve this?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I have had no conversations with the Attorney-General, and what the Attorney-General says or may have said in her capacity as a leadership contender is neither here nor there—as an unsuccessful leadership contender, I hasten to add. We need to get this straight. Unless we can define the boundaries of the debate we are about to have, we will be in a very unsatisfactory place. We are talking about the mechanisms of the convention—we are not talking about whether we should be in the convention or not. I remind the House that the UK has the best record of all member states within the convention; we are a party to, I think, seven United Nations conventions on human rights; we are very active in the Council of Europe in a number of respects; we fully support the ICC in its reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine; and there is no question of this fine tradition being mitigated, let alone abandoned.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
The Minister is quite right that we need to be clear but unfortunately, only two of the five remaining candidates for the Tory leadership have been clear that they would not leave the convention. Liz Truss, who is still in the Government, has said that she would be prepared to leave the ECHR. Rishi Sunak and Kemi Badenoch have failed to clarify their positions. Can the Minister be confident about the position of the Government from September, when he even has present Cabinet Ministers who do not agree with him?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Government have set out their position in the manifesto upon which they were elected. There is no change to that manifesto.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I, for one, am very grateful to the Minister for the clarity of his Answer. However, I am concerned that the more popular of the two candidates in the Conservative race for the premiership who have committed to staying in the ECHR has been subject to an absolutely disgraceful campaign of smearing in the right-wing press. Can the Minister give some fatherly advice to these candidates that when they launch Islamophobic and misogynistic attacks on each other, and when they attack human rights, it is bad for his party and for the country?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am not in a position to give fatherly advice to anybody. The Government do not support misogynistic or Islamophobic attacks on anyone. I have set out as clearly as I can the Government’s policy, and I shall doggedly pursue that policy unless and until instructed to the contrary.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it must be obvious that our suspicion stems from having had a lot of legislation come through this House that has shown no concern for human rights or political freedoms, which is what the ECHR is all about. How can we be sure about the next Prime Minister—a Tory party Prime Minister from the collection of leadership candidates that we are all horrified about?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The aim of the proposed legislation is to restore public confidence in the UK judiciary, to improve democratic accountability, to strengthen the right to free speech, to preserve the right to jury trial and to better protect journalists’ sources. I defy anyone in this House to vote against those objectives.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the trade and co-operation agreement which this country has with the European Union is contingent, from the European Union’s point of view, on our remaining in the convention on human rights? Can he give us the names of countries which have withdrawn from that convention?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The noble Lord is correct that there are references to the European Convention on Human Rights in the trade and co-operation agreement. We are not withdrawing from the convention—I do not know how many times I must say it before people understand the Government’s position. Since we are not withdrawing, the question of who has withdrawn or been expelled does not arise.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that the European convention should be regarded as particularly precious by Conservatives, given the part that Winston Churchill and Lord Kilmuir played in devising it?
Lord Watts (Lab)
What do the Government mean by “mechanisms”? It seems to add something to the Minister’s answer that he is not categorically ruling out changes. What are those mechanisms?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The provisions in the Bill are designed, in the words of Clause 1(2), to clarify and rebalance. The relevant mechanisms are to make clear the respective roles of the UK judiciary and the Strasbourg court, of the judiciary and Parliament, and of rights on the one hand and responsibilities on the other. Those are the mechanisms which I hope we will debate in detail in due course.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise and acknowledge that the Minister has indicated that there will be no withdrawal from the ECHR. However, can he give an assurance to your Lordships’ House today that he, along with other Ministers, will work to ensure that we remain within the ECHR, because any withdrawal from it would be a flagrant undermining of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which is hardwired into the ECHR?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I will happily give the noble Baroness that assurance, and I assure your Lordships that I will work with any or all of you to ensure that this Bill meets such concerns as you may have, in so far as it is within my power to do so.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the Minister is reassuringly adamant in his commitment to the convention. Can he assure the House about how he defends the export of asylum seekers to Rwanda in the face of the convention?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
We are entirely satisfied that the Government’s policy on asylum seekers is in compliance with the convention. In this context, I do not think that I can add to that answer.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, it is right to look at the draft put forward by the Lord Chancellor, which makes it absolutely plain that the intention of the Government in that document is that we stay in the European Convention on Human Rights. The preciousness of that is absolutely clear, and I feel certain that a Conservative Government—and, I believe, a Labour Government—are unlikely to move away from it.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I respectfully agree, and I am particularly delighted to pay my personal respects to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern following one of his last interventions in this House.
Her Majesty The Queen: “The Faithful”
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to advising Her Majesty The Queen to add “The Faithful” to her title; and what legislation, if any, would be required before such a title was adopted.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his thoughtful suggestion and for his kind words in the Motion on the humble Address about Her Majesty the Queen’s long and successful—and, I submit, happy and glorious—reign. There are no plans for the Government to advise Her Majesty to change her title, which was set out by proclamation made under the provisions of the Royal Titles Act 1953.
Lord Farmer (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, which I was expecting. Does he agree that the unprecedented occasion of a Platinum Jubilee demands marking for future generations and centuries the uniqueness of this reign? Adding “the Faithful” to the Queen’s title, as in “Alfred the Great”, would make her stand out in the sweep of history. This permanent and indisputable marker would acknowledge her constancy and outworked sense of duty. It has a double meaning, as it is directed both to God and to her fellow man. Can my noble friend the Minister suggest a constructive way forward?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I agree with every sentiment that my noble friend has expressed about Her Majesty. The position is that the titles are proclaimed by the Accession Council and embraced in the Royal Titles Act. The Platinum Jubilee demonstrated the affection this country has for Her Majesty; it may be left to history to accord titles to past monarchs, but the Government have no plans to make a change.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister mentions history in this context, would he not agree that such additions to the titles of our sovereigns, and indeed sovereigns in other states, have tended to be post hoc rather than during the lifetime of the person in question?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, that is true, and I think I alluded to that. I believe that the unfortunate title of King Ethelred the Unready, who died in 1016, was brought in only in the 1180s. The fact remains that the characteristic that my noble friend alluded to of the Queen’s sense of duty and commitment to her people, which was set out while she was still Princess Elizabeth, shines forth, as it has done on every day in her reign, and I am sure will shine on long after her passing.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. I declare my interest as Clerk of the Closet, an office of service to the Crown dating back to the 15th century. At her coronation, the Queen first gave her allegiance to God before anyone came forward to give their allegiance to her. Does the Minister agree that the generous, hospitable and open interpretation by Her Majesty of that duty to people of all faiths and none, over so many years, is not only a foundation stone of our constitution but a reason to feel all the more thankful for the lifelong service Her Majesty has given?
Lord True (Con)
Of course I agree with the right reverend Prelate. It is obviously not the custom of this place to comment on Her Majesty’s opinion or that of any other member of the Royal Family. I think the objective facts we have observed from that time prove that everything the right reverend Prelate has said is true.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that, in terms of recognition, building a national flagship is not actually what we should be doing? As far as I am aware, there has been no bid from the Royal Family, despite the fact that they loved the old royal yacht—and its removal was a disgrace. Focusing on building this national flagship in advance of some things that are crucial for our defence is not a clever thing to do.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I think that was mildly away from the subject of the Question, but I always note when a former Sea Lord is against the building of a ship.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that as people in the years to come look back on this extraordinary and glorious reign, they are likely to subscribe to it all manner of suitable loving and respectful epithets, and it might perhaps be wrong to single out any one term?
Lord True (Con)
I agree. Is it possible to agree with what both my noble friends said? I believe it is. The Queen’s reign provokes so many positive reflections, and I hope they will last. Her illustrious great-grandfather, King Edward VII, was known as “the Peacemaker” for his efforts to prevent war in Europe. Sadly, four years after his death, the Great War broke out.
Mr Mike Veale
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent inquiries they have made about a date for the start of the misconduct hearing relating to Mr Mike Veale announced by the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cleveland in August 2021.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, arrangements for the misconduct hearing of former chief constable Mike Veale are a matter for the Cleveland police and crime commissioner and it would be inappropriate to comment further while those proceedings remain ongoing.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House that I have used every means open to me—Motions of regret, Oral Questions, debates—to try to help bring the notorious Mike Veale to book ever since, as chief constable of Wiltshire, he conducted an appallingly biased investigation of the allegations of sex abuse against Sir Edward Heath. I also remind the House that in Cleveland, where he is chief constable, he is due to face a gross misconduct hearing, to which my noble friend referred. It was announced a year ago but has not even started. Meanwhile, Veale lives the life of Riley on £100,000 a year as adviser to the so-called Conservative PCC for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, who must have taken leave of his senses. This scandal really must end. How on earth can the Home Office stand by helplessly while a disgraced ex-policeman rakes in public money? May I ask that arrangements be made for a small cross-party group from this House to see the Home Secretary as soon as possible?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am more than happy to request that of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I hope that my noble friend would agree that, through all his years of effort, a remedy is on its way to being sought through the misconduct hearing. In terms of the individual’s work in Leicester, that is, of course, a matter for the Leicester PCC. It might be that my noble friend, as well as my request for him to see the Home Secretary, might himself request that of the Leicester PCC.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, how much longer must this farce go on? I am grateful to the Minister for her reply to my noble friend Lord Lexden, as I shall I call him, on this matter. I very much welcome the chance to talk to the Home Secretary about it. But you have a twice disgraced ex-chief constable awaiting a gross misconduct hearing that, by law, should have been heard months ago still advising for good money a police and crime commissioner in holding Leicestershire police to account. You could not make it up. A request for a meeting is actually the bare minimum. The Home Secretary is never short of advising on right and wrong; why are she and the Home Office so silent on this scandal?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is a matter for the legally qualified chair to convene a misconduct hearing. It is usually within 100 days but can be longer if the interests of justice will be served. Therefore, the LQC—the legally qualified chair—has obviously made a judgment on that. In terms of the issue of Leicester, that is a matter for the Leicester PCC.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, to be fair, some of us have had meetings with the Home Secretary, who is obviously concerned about this. One obviously understands that the Government cannot intervene in the internal conduct and affairs of the police, but surely there is something a bit odd here. As my noble friend Lord Lexden said, here is someone who is under investigation for gross misconduct. Surely, at a time such as this, they would be asked to stand aside until the matter is cleared up for them, rather than being promoted and given enhanced status inside the police service. Is there not a way of getting a message to the police authorities that this is appalling behaviour, which led to nonsensical accusations which proved to be based on lies, and demands a sensible handling of a kind which, at present, does not seem to be obvious?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I do not disagree with my noble friend that sensible handling is required. That is why I made the suggestion. The Government will not intervene in a matter with PCCs. I suggested to my noble friend and perhaps also suggest to my noble friend Lord Howell that there might be a delegation from noble Lords to go and see him.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, it is unacceptable that something as serious as this has been going on for more than a year without any resolution at all, not even a day in court. I understand that the Minister cannot comment on an individual case, but can she undertake to review how the process of misconduct hearings takes place nationally? It just cannot be in the interests of justice for this situation to continue. It is not fair, either to the accused or to the accuser.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I do not disagree with the noble Baroness, but I reiterate that the legally qualified chair can, in the interests of justice, take longer than 100 days to convene the misconduct hearing. I do not want anything I say at this Dispatch Box in any way to undermine a misconduct hearing, which is why I am so cautious about the matter.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I was going to ask the same question as the noble Lord, Lord Howell. Why should Mr Veale not stand aside? I thought the Minister said in her response that she agreed with the proposition put by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. Does she think Mr Veale should stand aside while this investigation is under way?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think noble Lords will all support the upholding of the rule of law, that justice is served and that anyone is innocent until proven guilty. The misconduct hearing will see that course of justice resolved.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, many thousands of very good police men and women are doing a great job 24 hours of every day, every week, including many on this site, but is it not a comment on the current state of the police force at senior management that the BCU commander for central and east London can issue an email at lunchtime today to say that he has been appointed to help lead the Met’s response to a recent finding by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, which has placed the Met into a form of advanced monitoring? I thought the Home Secretary described it as “special measures”.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think it is one and the same thing, in the sense that the Met Police will have to show obvious signs of improvement before the engage process, as the Home Secretary described it, is removed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will know that police and crime commissioners were established as elected postholders to increase accountability of the police forces to the local community. In the light of experience, does she think that has worked out well? If not, is it not time to put them to bed?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I think there are some excellent examples of PCCs up and down the country, including the noble Lord, Lord Bach—Parliament’s only PCC and a very good one indeed. Should the PCC not perform well at his or her job, they can be removed at the ballot box.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Will my noble friend the Minister accept that it is now generally acknowledged that a series of interrelated police operations—Yewtree, Conifer and Midland—were heavy-handed, disproportionate and founded on inappropriate assumptions of guilt? It is evident that there were manifest failings of procedure, governance and natural justice. Perhaps a complaint in this House was that the police were marking their own homework. When will anyone be held to account?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
In answer to my noble friend’s first question, I hope I have outlined the process by which remedy can be sought and secured for anybody accused of improper behaviour or misconduct in office. The whole system has changed, in the sense that now a police officer cannot just run, by retiring or resigning from their post, without facing the consequences of their actions.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Should not the legally appointed chair in Cleveland be asked to explain why a year has gone by without her starting these extremely important misconduct proceedings? Can the Home Office at least get an answer from her?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The legally qualified chair is independent of government. Again, my noble friend might wish to put that to the legally qualified chair. It would be wrong for the Government to intervene in such a process.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]
Monday 18th July 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Exclusions from Market Access Principles: Single-Use Plastics) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 June be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 July. Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) Order 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 22 June be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 July. Relevant document: 7th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Callanan, I beg to move the Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper en bloc.
Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 June be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 July. Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Cat and Dog Fur (Control of Movement etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 20 June be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 July.
Schools Bill [HL]
Monday 18th July 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Schools Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Schools Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 35-II Manuscript amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (18 Jul 2022)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will begin with a brief note on scheduling. I know that there were concerns about progressing with Third Reading before the Summer Recess. The Government have listened to the concerns expressed, including on the first day on Report, and have agreed through the usual channels that a quick Third Reading is no longer desirable. As announced in the new version of Forthcoming Business, Third Reading has moved to Wednesday 14 September. The short delay does not affect the wider passage of the Bill. I hope this provides reassurance to your Lordships.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, Report may be the last occasion on which this House will be able to consider the Bill because, as the Minister said, the suggestion is that it should get a Third Reading on 14 September. I do not know any example of a Government who do not yet exist determining whether a Bill should get a Third Reading. On 14 September there will be a new Government, who may have different views on the Bill. There will be different Ministers. I hope very much that the Minister will remain in her post because, quite frankly, she is the only Minister in the department who understands anything about education. She is surrounded by five Boris cronies who know absolutely nothing about education. They are there for a pay rise for five weeks and compensation for loss of office—a loss of office which will be richly deserved. I hope that she will survive, because she understands this Bill better than most.
The point I would like to make is that if we agree that the Bill should be voted upon on 14 September, there will be a different set of usual channels that may decide this, thank God—I should not have said that. There will be a different team. I am not insulting any of them individually; I would never do that. You do not insult the usual channels because you have to live with them, although you may never forgive them. To continue my point, I think the vote should be later than that.
I have had a most helpful letter from the Minister today setting out her intentions for the time that she is in office, saying that she will preside over a committee set up to begin the long process of determining what should be the relationship between the Government and MATs—multi-academy trusts. This is a very important measure because it is the creation of an administrative body that stands between the Department for Education and the rest of the schools. In the past, when we have set up administrative bodies of this importance, it has usually taken weeks, months, decades or, in some cases, centuries to determine the right relationship. In effect, many of these bodies will be local authorities and therefore the issues involved are of immense importance. What power do they have over the schools? Do the individual school boards count for anything? On what occasions can they cut or increase the money to the schools? On what occasions can specialist schools protect their specialisms? In the Bill as it stands, a grammar school or a religious school is protected in a multi-academy trust, but, as the amendment from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, showed the other day, there are many other schools with specialisms in maths, science and dance, all of which are not really protected at the moment when they go into academy trusts.
The Minister set out in her letter that she hopes to have, or her successor might hope to have, findings by the end of September, then a consultation period and determinations by Christmas. In that case, if the Bill came to the Lords on 14 September, there is no way that amendments would appear in the Commons until early spring next year. The Bill will therefore not come back to us until summer next year, and it will involve issues that we know nothing about; we do not really know what the recommendations will be.
This is a unique situation in the constitutional history of the House of Lords. We have never been asked to pass a Bill to the Commons where half of the Bill is not known. In all fairness, the Minister does not know it either, because she has to consult on it with the committee. This has never happened before and I think it is highly disrespectful to ask this House to pass a Bill on the undertakings. As far as I understand, in this sort of situation, in spring or summer next year we will get a Bill with maybe 10 or 20 new clauses and we will be given a day. How lucky we are that we will get a day to discuss them all. I do not think that we should put up with this.
The House of Lords started this Bill, not the Commons, and the importance of starting a Bill in the Lords is that we can make radical changes to it without knowing whether or not the House of Commons has been whipped to support it. That is what we have done in this Bill. I hope that we might set an example for other Bills that start in the House of Lords to be much firmer in making amendments and changes. That is our power as a second Chamber. We do not have many powers, but we have that power.
I very much hope that we will not agree to a Third Reading on 14 September. The constitutional arrangements should be that it should remain pending for the new Government. They may well want to accept all the recommendations that my noble friend is working on, but she will not even know what they are because they are not going to agree the recommendations until the end of September, and she will either be in or out of office on 7 or 8 September. This great uncertainty leads me to believe that it would be imprudent for us to consider a Third Reading on 14 September.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I echo and support the noble Lord, Lord Baker. I do not understand why the Government are in such a hurry to have a Third Reading on the Bill when they have already agreed to take out the first 18 clauses. Those clauses will be subject to a review being conducted by the Minister. She will need to keep to a very ambitious timetable, because essentially this is about the situation of how all schools, under the White Paper produced earlier in the year, are to become academies by 2030. The matter that the Minister’s review is looking at is: what should the accountability system be for thousands and thousands of schools?
Even if the Minister reaches a conclusion by the end of September, a full consultation has to be held. At that point the Government have to make decisions. They then have to give instructions to parliamentary counsel to redraft Part 1 of the Bill. That is surely going to take many months indeed. I think the noble Lord is ambitious in thinking that this will be back with us in the spring. It could take very much longer. On that basis, why on earth are the Government going for a Third Reading? There is absolutely no need for it until they see what they are going to do to make the changes.
A second point I would like to make comes back to the points that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, made at Second Reading and in other debates, and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, referred to it. The Government have sought to ride roughshod over this House in the nature of the drafting of the Schools Bill. We must set down a marker that this is unacceptable. I believe that we should not give this Bill a Third Reading until we have much greater assurances that when these new clauses come back—if they come back—we will go through a full process of Committee, Report and Third Reading before we can say that we have dealt with them satisfactorily.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, we understood that Third Reading was going to happen this week. I drafted a Notice of Motion for the House to decide whether Third Reading should be heard at all. I showed the Notice of Motion to the Chief Whip, he saw it and it was perfectly plain that, if the House agrees, we should not take Third Reading at all until we know exactly what is in the Bill. I happen to agree with the noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Hunt: whether or not we leave the Third Reading in Forthcoming Business, the House will also have to consider a Notice of Motion that we should not consider Third Reading at all.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, sitting where I am, I have repeatedly felt genuinely sorry for the Minister, who has done so much to try to improve the Bill or respond to concerns that have been expressed. But she must have realised by now that the Bill is beyond repair. If it does re-emerge, it will do so in such a different form from the one that started out that it will be tantamount to being a new Bill. In our attempts to improve it, I am reminded of the no doubt apocryphal British Rail announcement that the Wednesday afternoon train to Crewe would now run on Thursday mornings and would not stop at Crewe. That is the situation that this Bill is in. I think that the Minister can honestly and with real integrity report back to her political colleagues in the Commons that we really need to stop trying to amend a Bill that has gone way beyond that stage and that the last rites need to be performed and a new Bill brought before the House.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has done what in rugby they say happens to good players: they catch the bad ball. You catch the attention of the entire team and you get flattened, but the good players get up. I hope the Minister will be able to get up and report back that—and I have made this point to her many times—unless we have a realistic amount of time and structure within which to discuss the changes, we are not doing our job. It is as simple as that.
I would be slightly more flexible about having a whole new Committee stage, but only one day has been suggested. I asked the Minister at the time whether that meant one day of business that might be extended to three or four—we might have a better reading if we had that—but a process that would be effectively guillotined, or at least very condensed, fills me with nothing but dread. We have to make sure that we have enough time to discuss the changes, and if that meant another process coming through, I would be quite flexible and would encourage my noble friends to do the same. But one day of Committee, with 12, 20 or who knows how many more new clauses and a structure that we have not heard of yet—come on, that is not on.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the only thing that stops me wholeheartedly agreeing with everything that previous speakers have said is the thought that we would have to go through this again.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, that is one of the reasons why I support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. This is not just about a particular Bill; it is about the way we do business. As I am just about to finish my first parliamentary year in this House, and, as other noble Lords have said, a situation of this kind has not arisen before, I would not like to think that this would set a precedent in any way for the way in which the House considers its business in future. When it comes to what I might call negotiating leverage, one day is a derisory offer to the House; with no disrespect to the Minister, that is not good enough. There is great merit in not agreeing to allow a date for Third Reading to be set at this stage.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is quite clear that the Bill has been badly received across the whole House. Whole chunks of it have been taken out and it is in a very poor state, and it is clear that it should not have come here at all because it had not been put together properly. I am sure the Minister has heard that; it is not the first time that these views have been expressed. We will have a new Government in September, and then it will be up to the Prime Minister. This Bill may disappear completely—we do not know.
I have been part of the usual channels now for 13 months, and I hope still to be here in September—in one or other part of the usual channels. I will spend my summer working with colleagues in other parts of the House to ensure that the points raised by colleagues are fully understood by the Government, so that we can work together, bring things back and have a system that everyone is happy with. The Minister has heard how dissatisfied the House is. I am sorry, but I think that is important.
One thing I have learned as Opposition Chief Whip is that the forthcoming business can change from day to day, never mind what is going to happen in September. Particularly in March and April, the forthcoming business was changing literally every day. The fact that it is listed for September does not necessarily mean that it will happen then. We do not know. We will have those discussions then.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has mentioned, we have the other protection of his Motion. I am sure that if Third Reading is tabled and he is unhappy with it, his Motion will be tabled for the House to consider. There are many barriers in place to make sure that the House can make its views known if it is unhappy. I am sure the Minister has heard how unhappy the House is.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Minister has heard loud and clear. I suppose I would say a couple of things—but very briefly, because it is important that we get on and hear your Lordships’ thoughts on the rest of the Bill.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord, Grocott that the Bill is not beyond repair. There are significant parts of it—relating to the children not in school register and illegal schools—that are definitely not beyond repair. I also point the noble Lord to the large section of the Bill where there have been no amendments at all.
My request to your Lordships is that when we come to look at the new clauses, noble Lords leave these debates behind and look at them objectively, fairly and with all the experience and critical judgment that they can bring to them. I hope very much that, when that happens, the Bill can see a speedy passage.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, before calling the first group, I should say that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I remind the House that remote speakers speak first after the mover of the lead amendment in a group and may therefore speak to other amendments in the group ahead of Members who tabled them.
Clause 49: Registration
“(5A) Condition C is not met if the parents of the child have made alternative arrangements to satisfy the duty in section 7 (duty of parents to secure education of children of compulsory school age).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to exempt home education from mandatory registration, where the standard of learning is such that parents are compliant with their duties.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 64B I shall also speak to other amendments in my name. I declare an interest, as I have before, that I am from a home-educating family, which I am proud of. I wish there were more noble Lords in this Chamber who had the privilege of being part of home education.
As was discussed earlier, the Bill really should not exist in its current form. It has been thoroughly gutted already, and there were good reasons for that. The reasons for gutting the earlier parts of the Bill are no different from the reasons for doing the same to the end of the Bill, which I am afraid is just as much of a mess.
We live in an age of change. There is more remote working and people want to take more control over their health, and they want to do the same for education. I fear that this Government, and Governments generally, are on the run. More and more parents are choosing to take control of their children’s education, which is their right in this country. We as parents have a duty to educate our children. When we want to, we hand over responsibility to the Government, academies, trusts and so on to fulfil that duty, but in this country it is parents who are legally obliged to provide education for their children, and that is only right. We are not some other countries where the opposite is the case.
In this time of change, where perhaps people are taking back control—though maybe not always in the ways that we might have imagined—that forms a threat, in health and to local authorities. I am afraid I have documentary evidence, which I shall share with the House today, about how that perceived threat has led to real injustices under the current regime, even before this Bill becomes law.
Without protections and, frankly, without a wholescale redesign of this law, on which I may push a vote several times today, we may end up with a circumstance in which the injustices that many families are already experiencing today will be heightened and worsened, and we will see many willingly go to prison to stand on this principle. Having spoken to the Minister and colleagues in the department, I do not think the Government truly understand why anyone would go to prison on principle in order not to have their children on the register. They do not understand why. Is that because they do not have any children who they home educate? I would love to see survey results on how many Ministers, people in the department and people in local authorities home educate their children. If they did then they would take a very different view of what they are trying to do today.
I start by apologising to my colleagues on the Benches who have had to come here in such heat—although, thank God, we are well air-conditioned in this Chamber—to potentially vote on my amendments and those of other Peers. I am truly sorry that my amendment was put in early on the Marshalled List so that they have had to take that kind of heat. However, I ask the House to imagine that they had to face that heat every day for four or five years with no end in sight.
As I start to present my amendments, I shall read the House a few excerpts from a testimony that has been shared with me which has broken my heart. It is under the current regime—the current legal means by which local authorities can monitor and vet home education. I will not share the name of the lady concerned but I want the House to hear her story because there are many similar ones that I and other Peers have been sent. Again, this is happening under the current regime and existing laws.
This lady, a teacher of 20 years’ standing, decided to home educate after a parents evening where her six year-old daughter’s teacher announced that she “would not set the world on fire”. This is a teacher saying that a child will not do anything good in their life, basically. She decided, quite rationally, as is her right, to home educate and the child thrives. In fact, in Kent, where the family started to do this, the local authority visited them, with consent, saw the learning that was going on and valued it so much that it highlighted all the information and resources that were available to support this family. Soon after, the local authority said that it would be a waste of its time and resources to continue to visit this family. Clearly, education was a priority. They were always available and they did not need to have the level of monitoring that they initially had. They were happy for several years.
London, where my children are home educated, is an amazing environment for home education with all kinds of groups. However, this family then moved to Bromley. I am sorry that I have to mention this local authority by name, but it is one of many, according to the letters that I and other Peers have received, that have behaved atrociously under the current regime, which we are about to tighten, by the way. We already have many injustices and many families facing difficulties—I will describe the kind of things that happened to them—but we are about to give the authorities a great deal more power and not even to track down and deal with the bad actors that my other amendments try to start to deal with.
I will fast forward, because of time. This local authority visited the family, asked for lots of information and samples of work, which were kept on record over a long period. The authority’s job was to identify children missing from education. This eventually became unnecessary intrusion. After four years, the family still had no answers; they were still under investigation. Their immediate request for information held about them—remember GDPR, which we will discuss later—was not heard. The family decided not to provide any more information, because the situation was getting ridiculous after four years of constant hounding. It got to the point where the children were scared of the postman coming.
The family requested information. They wrote to Ofsted and they wrote to the department. This is all relevant to my amendments, so forgive me for taking a little more time. Bromley was given a great report for the way it treated this family. Eventually, the family was given a school attendance order, after requesting information being held about them under GDPR rules, with the Information Commissioner’s Office saying that Bromley had to comply. None of the ICO’s requests was followed through. The information that was held about the family was not provided and a school attendance order was slapped on them. The home education was of a very high standard—there was no reason to do that.
We have found out since then that this is a common occurrence. School attendance orders are used to silence families who kick up a fuss, because you cannot complain to the Local Government Ombudsman. I would love to hear from the Minister whether she disagrees and whether she has audited this kind of behaviour, but I hear that it is very common. Most families do not know that it has happened to them; they cannot appeal and they are silenced because they now have a school attendance order. We are about to make this process stronger in the Bill, forcing people to send their children to school where, ultimately, if they do not comply or provide information, prison is what awaits. The Secretary of State has not replied. We have heard before that there is provision for appeal, but both routes are closed for these families. Again, I have other amendments to create better ways to hear their voices.
The point of my first amendment today is that we need to provide protection. One of the ways that we can provide protection is simply to exempt home educating parents who are delivering a high standard of education, in line with current law, from this register. It is, in my mind, ludicrous that those who are doing a good job are put on a register in an open-ended way. At any time, their home education can be interrupted. Those who complain can be forced to send their children to school, so they do not complain or appeal. There is no recourse and no time limit and there is no easy way to overturn this.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I gently remind the noble Lord of the Companion, which says that speakers
“are expected to keep within 15 minutes”.
That is not a formal limit but an advisory one. It says that
“on occasion, a speech of outstanding importance, or a ministerial speech winding up an exceptionally long debate, may exceed”
the limit, but the noble Lord has now been going on for 17 minutes.
Lord Wei (Con)
Thank you, I will wrap up.
I have two final amendments in this group. Amendment 86A in my name relates to a refusal to provide info not being sufficient reason to impose a school attendance order on a family. In this instance, the fact that the teacher or home educator did not provide information was seen as evidence that they were not educating their children properly. If you do not provide education and choose on principle not to provide that information, that should not mean that you are not educating your children well or that a school attendance order is put on them. This amendment is to prevent such occurrences happening again.
Finally, I support Amendment 118C on a code of conduct, but others will speak to that. I will give way and let them do that now.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
I assume that the noble Lord would like to move his amendment?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, as I previously advised, I now invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to speak.
Oh, I have been advised that the noble Baroness does not wish to speak.
Lord Soley (Lab)
I was going to get a glass of water, but that is going to be difficult. I thought for a moment that maybe the noble Lord, Lord Wei, was not going to move the amendment. I would have advised him not to. I am sure that he is well intended—I do not doubt that—but he has missed many of the debates on this over the years. I ask him to understand that, when I put the Bill forward on home education, that was five years ago. I never heard from the noble Lord then or had any involvement with him. He did not seem to be interested in it, but I consulted very widely. I consulted by all sorts of measures: I had meetings in the House; I had Zoom meetings up and down the country; I had emails and all those things. I was dealing very much with a small group of people who objected to the register. Most of them came on board; a small minority have not, but the majority support the Bill and the register. They do so because they know it is beneficial.
I think one of the things the noble Lord, Lord Wei, has missed quite seriously is that the provision is designed to be supportive. It is not a punishment, but he does not seem to understand that. In other words, for the first time a home-educating parent will be able to say to the local authority, “I want help to do this bit of home education, which I cannot deliver myself.” It might be in advanced science, music or art; it might be any of those things, and the local authority has to do it. It is supportive, not punitive, and the noble Lord’s whole speech was on the idea that it is punitive.
I say to him, as I have said in previous debates, some home educators are very good at it, but that does not mean that they do not need help at times. Just because you are able to teach certain things does not make you a good teacher without that support and backup which might be, as I say, in advanced sciences or whatever. The noble Lord’s amendment would deny them that and actually make it worse for them.
My line on this—I give credit to the Government, who have adopted most of my Bill here—has been about doing it well, and they have. I had some doubts about the appeal system. I wrote to the Minister about this and she gave me certain assurances in her reply about how that system will work. I made other suggestions too, but I think the Minister is saying that the appeal mechanism is there for both the parents and the authority. We should remember that this is a two-way street. The noble Lord, Lord Wei, says that he has had complaints from people about the way that a local authority has behaved. I say to him: listen to those people, mainly children who are now grown up and had complaints about the way that home education was done to them or, importantly, where it was done partly as a cover for something else. You do not have to think just about abuse here: it is about a child working in a shop and then being told “Well, you’re learning mathematics”; it is about trafficking, too.
Listening to the noble Lord, I think he has no concept of this. His speech was all about the terrible state and the wonderful home-educating parent. Most parents who home-educate in the way that he described do it well. They really have nothing to fear from this because what they will get is support from the local authority, if they ask for it. At the same time, they will have to demonstrate that the child is being properly educated. Is that really wrong?
Lord Wei (Con)
Just to clarify a few of my remarks, I want to credit the noble Lord, Lord Soley, the Minister and the Government for doing research. That is important and I hope that the research and consultations that will take place, moving forwards, will bring out more of the data and evidence that we sorely need. I feel that the most recent consultation, which was very short, did not get enough of the opinions of home educators. Many of those who oppose the register are painted as a minority, but that is not necessarily the case. A lot of people—
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Will the noble Lord give way? My understanding is that it is not normal to have a backwards and forwards between Back-Benchers. I am getting nods from the Front Bench, which is a very rare occurrence from either Front Bench. I am going to speak to my amendment—oh, sorry.
Lord Soley (Lab)
I had not finished. It is very unusual to intervene on an intervention. I was speaking and I was giving way to the noble Lord, Lord Wei.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, it is probably worth clarifying that on Report a Member should speak only once unless it is the Minister. I think we will finish the remarks we have heard; then if the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wants to make her contribution separately, I am sure we would love to hear it.
Lord Soley (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Wei, asked me to give way, which I did, but I am quite happy to continue as I have nearly finished.
I emphasise again that there has been far more consultation than the noble Lord, Lord Wei, is aware of. I did not spend the last five years arguing for this Bill just for the fun of it. I did not ignore people. I have had people say to me what they have said to him: “I’ll go to prison rather than this”. Mind you, in a very long career in politics of 40-odd years I have heard an awful lot of people say they would go to prison for one thing or another, but very few do. The poll tax was a near exception, but by and large they do not.
I was saying to those people—to be fair, I won over a lot of them—“Think of this as supportive”. The noble Lord is falling into the trap of a tiny minority who say that this is a wicked state that is going to do terrible things. He has taken that as a fact; it is not. It is not even in the Bill that way. This is supportive. It is not a punishment. He is not doing himself or the House any favours in implying that it is anything other than supportive. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am going to be very quick. I would like to speak to my Amendment 86B and later amendments which are essentially saying the same thing: that this Bill is dreadful and ought to be taken away and thought over completely.
Amendment 86B is to delete Clause 49 entirely because it is such a far-reaching clause that it will create a bureaucratic nightmare for thousands of families. At the same time, it will fail to achieve the Government’s stated policy aims. I am also completely puzzled about how overstretched local authorities will be able to implement these new powers and duties. Having been a local councillor, I know how hard they work and how overstretched they are already—even before the recent government cuts.
Overall, I am convinced that Clause 49 will turn out as a total legislative failure and will leave a trail of destruction that will probably be ignored because home-schooling families are a minority in this country. I wish the Government would see sense on this and support the deletion of this clause, as they have with significant other parts of the Bill which they acknowledge were also unworkable. Within that, I would like to include my deletion of other parts of the Bill in Amendments 93A, 95A and 95B.
Finally, on my Amendment 118C, the government amendments are a step in the right direction, but a long way from the necessary protection that families need from these new powers. A code of practice would address the data protection concerns that many parents have. I urge the Minister to think about that.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have several amendments in this group. If I were to say one thing to my noble friend the Minister, it is that I really hope the department will use the time it has while dealing with Part 1 to advance its thinking on the guidance and other aspects of the Bill so that, by the time it gets considered by the Commons, its thinking is rather more detailed and matured than what we have had the chance to look at. That would be a real help.
My noble friend Lord Wei raised some issues of true Conservative principle, which I hope home educators will find the opportunity to discuss with the candidates during August. Home education is a matter of freedom. Although the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and my noble friend both say that the Bill is supportive of home education, in many details it is not.
As my noble friend Lord Wei said, many letters are reaching us describing situations in which local authorities have been, frankly, abusive to home educators without any obvious good reason. I have pursued some of these matters with local authorities. I will not name the one I have talked to, but it is clear that they allow the difficulty that they have with some families to spill over into the way that they deal with those who are, on the face of it, doing a pretty good job—for instance, harassing a child who had a stroke aged six and saying that the child, rather than being cared for specially within their family, must be cast into school, not accepting independent reports about this child and saying that they must have more, different evidence. That is not in any way conducting their relationships in a supportive way. There have been cases where they have made really unpleasant remarks about home educators privately, and then, by mistake, copied others into emails. This shows that among a good number of local authorities there is a very unsatisfactory attitude to home education.
I am very keen that the Bill contain safeguards which put home educators, particularly good ones, in a position where they can reasonably hope to argue their case. We will come to some more details of that later. My noble friend Lord Wei espouses some true Conservative values of freedom and family which the Bill does not recognise sufficiently. One could also argue for efficiency, in that the best local authorities seem to do a very good job and, with the same money, go beyond what is achieved elsewhere by building up a pattern of trust which enables them not to spend time harassing people who are doing a good job.
The Bill as it is at the moment is not efficient, nor does it pay sufficient attention to all those occasions when the state is failing children. We have an amendment later, which I applaud, which says that children who have been excluded should not be placed in unregistered institutions. Oh, my golly—that is the state doing that. Why are we fussed about what good private educators are doing when there are things like that being done by the state?
There is a flavour in some of the remarks I have read from local authorities of a difficulty with difference which we should surely not allow. Local authorities have to deal with a lot of very different people, including Gypsies and others who choose to live a lifestyle which is not at all in accordance with the normal. Fear or dislike of difference should not be something one finds in a local authority. I entirely understand where the noble Lord, Lord Wei, is coming from, but my wish in the Bill is to find ways of improving it in its detail rather than attacking the principle of the register.
Amendment 65 looks at the
“means by which the child is being educated”.
That is widely seen—I think correctly—as permitting the Government to inquire deeply into the exact way in which a child is being educated. That is one of the ways the worst local authorities have adopted to oppress home educators. They ask for more and more detail. They ask for things that home educators are not doing, like having a timetable. There is a whole structure of education which is necessary in school but does not apply to home education. Home education can be centred on the child and be very different. The question is: is it effective and sufficient? Is it doing what it should do to bring out the qualities of the child? The structure of what is being provided should not be open to question and attack if the outcome is sufficient.
Amendments 65 and 66A suggest alternative ways of dealing with that, and in Amendment 66 we will come to another, when the right reverend Prelate speaks to it. With Amendment 66A, we are looking at a limit to who is providing the education. The Government want to know what outside people are providing the education that a child is receiving. That seems to me to be a reasonable bit of information to ask for, and is well short of the worrying implications of the wording as it is.
In Amendment 85, I come back to a subject I raised in Committee. One of the justifications for the register is so that we know what is happening to children. I find that quite persuasive, but if we are going to do that, we ought to know what is happening to all children in this country; we should not leave bits unexamined. At the moment, your standard independent school does not return data to the Department for Education on the children in its charge. I do not think it takes legislation to change that; it just takes the Government to decide that they want that, and to ask for it—they have the power. But if the justification for a register on home educators is that the Government ought to know what is happening to children, that same thought ought to apply to independent education too.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, I speak on behalf of my right reverend friend the Bishop of St. Albans, who has two amendments in his name, Amendments 66 and 94. His name is also listed on Amendments 65 and 66A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Amendments 65, 66 and 66A continue to take issue with the proposals for details of the means by which a child is being educated to be included on the register. Amendment 66 would replace this with a determination of suitability, and provide for visits by the local authority for determining that suitability to be recorded. However, further to communication with the Department for Education and the Minister, we understand that their interpretation of the word “means” does not relate to the educational content or methods of home educating but simply to the providers of the education, since separate rules for registration will pertain to out-of-school education. We have been informed that this framework will be set out in the future statutory guidance. This is a much more positive interpretation than had previously been supposed, but if this is the interpretation I am not sure why it could not have been contained within the primary legislation rather than prescribed at a later date. Amendment 66A, from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would naturally resolve that problem.
We are most grateful for the Minister’s communications with the Bishops’ Bench to clarify this matter. However, the terminology remains unhelpfully ambiguous. I hope that the Minister can alleviate the concerns of home-schoolers and state on the record that this simply means inquiring into who is providing the education and not the substance of the education or the methods of teaching.
I turn now to Amendment 94, which would insert a new clause after Clause 50 and seeks to provide protection for the institution of home schooling against any undue or unfair interference. The proposed new clause would ensure that any contact between the local authorities and home-schoolers respects protected characteristics, as well as Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, as in the Human Rights Act, in making sure that
“the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”
The point is that the way in which this Bill is framed could be seen to cast a cloud of suspicion on all home educators. The noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Wei, have already raised that point. Some parents are also worried that this register is the thin end of an invasive wedge that could lead to undue state prescription with regard to home schooling.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am very supportive of Amendment 64A. Amendments 65, 66, 66A and 94 are also ways of reassuring and protecting home-schoolers in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Soley, made the point that, over his many years in politics, many have threatened to go to prison for their beliefs and rarely do. We all recognise that point. But it is also true that, over the many years that I have been involved in politics, I have been reassured that many a law is supportive and not a punishment or threat, and I have learned not to take much notice of that either. The notion that if you are a good actor you have nothing to fear is actually quite chilling, because then you have to ask who decides who the good actors are—who will define what a good parent is, in this instance. It is a little unfair that people who feel so strongly that they say they would go to prison are dismissed, because it speaks to the fact that this Bill has created uncertainty. The Minister has gone out of her way to be reassuring—I do not dismiss that; that is something to be taken seriously—but all that these amendments are trying to do is to codify that reassurance in a variety of ways, rather than just having it on word of mouth.
It is not helpful to say whether it is a minority of home-schoolers who are worried about the register or a majority. In a way, who cares whether it is a majority or a minority? It is the principle, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has made that very clear. I emphasise that there is a principle of freedom here that we should not just throw out or dismiss as some sort of inconvenience to more pragmatic concerns.
The problem with the register is that it is not just a register; it ends up looking as though it requires far more on details of means, as the right reverend Prelate just explained—more than you need in a register. It does not just tick a box. That is why many home educators are very anxious about it. I am not a home educator and have never been home educated; to be frank, I am not interested in home educators per se, but I am interested more broadly in a situation where the state collects so much data and information—a database of children—and interferes in our freedom in a democratic society to home educate, if that is what we want. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle explained, the cloud of suspicion being created that this is a potential assault on deeply held religious and philosophical freedoms is something we should all take seriously as democrats who support a free society.
The suspicion that some home educators have of the state and the way that education is conducted is what we should be discussing in relation to this Schools Bill—if it were not such a basket case of a Bill that we cannot get anywhere on what we ought to be discussing, which is irritating. We have a problem when many parents believe that the state cannot be trusted to educate their children. All sorts of controversial issues come up. I do not think it is a criticism of home educators that they do not trust the state or think that it does not provide the kind of education that their SEND child or bullied child needs, or that they do not want someone to be exposed to the kind of materials in sex and relationship education that we will probably discuss later, which have been all over the news. These are reasonable philosophical ideas to hold; they, and religious freedom, are things that we should be protecting in this House.
We should remember the Telford report, which I just finished reading over the weekend. We have to be careful when the state starts saying that the people acting suspiciously are the parents. I also read the Oldham report, in which state actors—councils, schools, the police and all sorts of people—ignored in plain sight the sexual grooming and abuse of thousands of young people. I am not prepared just to say that I trust the state. It is perfectly reasonable when people do not, but we at least have to reassure them about their freedoms to withdraw from state schooling. After all, it is not the law that you have to school your child, simply that you have to educate them. I trust those parents to educate them as much as I trust the state. Where there are bad actors, you act, but you do not treat everyone all the time as potential bad actors.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I said at Second Reading, putting the register aside for a moment, that we as a society have a responsibility to ensure that all our children are safe, secure and educated. If that is not happening, we need to ask why and what we can simply do to make sure that every child is safe and educated.
Over the last seven or eight years, I have put down a whole series of Written Questions asking how many children are missing from our school rolls, such that we do not even know where they are. The answer is that we do not know. The best we can do currently—this goes back to 2018-19—is information from the National Crime Agency, which, by the way, identifies as missing anyone whose whereabouts cannot be established and who may be the subject of a crime or at risk of harm to themselves; examples include child trafficking, getting involved in drug pushing, et cetera. It concluded that there are 216,707 children missing whose whereabouts we do not know. That is a very low figure. I think it is considerably higher than that.
For me, that is what this debate is about: protecting children and making sure that they are safe, secure and educated. That is why I welcome these measures on home education and congratulate the Government on having the courage to pick up this political hot potato and try to do something about it—it is not perfect; I take it for granted that there are some concerns—and about unregistered schools.
Of course, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle was right about parents’ rights and values, but society has to make sure that, when children are in schools which are not subject to any checks or inspections, they are not being taught the most appalling practices, which Ofsted highlights in its reports. There have been a couple of cases where it has taken those schools to court and managed to close them down—the right reverend Prelate would be horrified if he knew. One such school, which was not unregistered, was a Christian school as well; I am happy to talk to him privately about it.
Let us understand where we are coming from in this debate. We all have anecdotal evidence of home tuition and teaching. I listened with great interest to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and his worries about what might happen. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is absolutely right that there have been some appalling practices by local authorities; there have also been some fantastic practices by them, which should be the model for how we behave. That is why I will suggest in the next group that local authorities appoint home school co-ordinators.
I have been struck by the number of emails I have had—I think it was 82 at the last count—from home educators. They have concerns, of course, or they would not be emailing me, but I come away thinking, “Wow, what a tremendous job you’re doing.” I have met some of them. I met one last week, who told me about how she had ignited an interest in the Tudors in her daughter. I thought again, “What a tremendous job you’re doing.” However, those actually doing the work of home tuition are perhaps seeing problems that will not be there.
We need a simple register which collects some simple information. I did not know and was quite surprised to learn that independent schools do not provide any data—that is a new one on me. They should be doing so. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, rightly said, we should know where all our children are—whether they are in school, home educated, in an unregistered school or in the independent sector. Let that be the rallying call from these amendments.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am in a bit of a dilemma. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, if I may so refer to her, has spoken to all the clauses she would like to have taken out of the Bill. When I was last in the House, during my 26 years, the issue of whether a clause remained in the Bill came up only in debates of clause stand part. At that stage only did the argument come forward, if someone wanted to make it, that a clause no longer stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, we disagree in principle on this. Of course we respect the ability of parents to educate their own children, but nothing in this Bill prevents parents from educating their children at home. The sad truth is that home education is being used, sometimes, as a front for neglect, or even abuse. This is happening, and many of us here have seen too many examples of this, but there are multiple examples of great practice too—of course there are—and examples, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, quite rightly said, of local authorities playing a supportive role. Clearly, there are situations where this relationship has not been successful, and I would be interested in what the Minister has to say about what she is planning to do to make sure that that is prevented wherever possible.
But registration does not mean that children will be forced to attend school. The reference of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, to the sex offender register was unfortunate and inflammatory, and the noble Lord’s Amendment 72A, on the obligation to provide information, raises great concern for me, where it says that
“A local authority may only require parents to provide the information under this section if the local authority suspects that the parents are educating the child in such a way that it may lead to the child conducting violence or sexual or physical abuse against others.”
There is nothing about the protection of that child. I could never vote for that, and if the noble Lord chooses to divide the House on his amendments, we will be voting to make sure that they are not included in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Soley has told us previously that he has been waiting for these measures to be brought into law for some time. He has done sensitive and sterling work for very many years on this issue, and I pay tribute to him for the kind way that he handled responding to the noble Lord opposite, and for the work that he has done over some time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made important points about the capacity of local authorities, but I note that many local authorities, when asked, have welcomed the approach being taken. Obviously, the proof is going to be in the implementation, and we do not dismiss the concerns about how this Bill will work in practice. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, the balance here between the freedom of home educators, which we recognise, and the safeguarding of children, has not been where it needs to be previously.
We welcome the Government’s amendments in this clause. We agree very much regarding our obligations to support and protect children, and with the reassuring words of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on this issue. We should be celebrating home education; too often, it has been viewed—and I think home educators themselves have picked up on this—with some suspicion, or even ridicule, not just by local authorities but in society generally. There is no need for that, and having this clearer framework may actually support the recognition of home education as a valid way of educating children.
It would, though, having said all that, be very helpful to alleviate some of the fears of home educators if the Minister could explain to the House what she intends to do ahead of, and after, implementation, to take home educators with her, so that the threat and fear can be reduced, and home educators can be properly reassured.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the first group of amendments which relate to the proposals for children not in school registers. If I may, I would like to start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for their very constructive remarks in setting the context in which these measures are being introduced. I would also like to echo the noble Baroness opposite’s remarks regarding the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and his, as she said, very sensitive and kind work on this. Obviously, sensitivity and kindness are really important, because we are talking about parents who care desperately that their children get the right education, and all of us as parents can recognise how important that is.
Amendments 64B and 72A, from my noble friend Lord Wei, seek to narrow the eligibility criteria for the registers. Local authorities would still need to make inquiries and hold certain information to ascertain a child’s eligibility to be on the register, and indeed to check whether a child is at risk of harm. This is not materially different to local authorities recording this information in a register, except that the effect of these amendments would hinder local authorities from discharging their existing duties. The House has already heard reflections from the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Chapman, about the pressures that local authorities are under.
It is vital that the registers contain information on all children not in school. The registers are there not just for safeguarding reasons but also to aid local authorities to undertake existing responsibilities to ensure education being provided is suitable, to help them identify children who are truly missing education, which will become easier once we know where all children not in school are, and, critically, to help them to discharge their new duty to provide support to home-educating families. As other noble Lords have said, this in no way diminishes the rights of any parent to decide to educate their child at home.
My noble friend talked about the lack of opportunities for appeal and complaints. There are a number of routes for complaints available for parents in relation to school attendance orders. First, they can ask the local authority to revoke the order, and the local authority must act reasonably in deciding whether or not to agree to this. If the local authority refuses, the parents can appeal to the Secretary of State to give direction; the Secretary of State will consider each case individually and will make a balanced judgment on the information available, and has the power to direct the local authority to revoke a school attendance order. The Education Act 1996 also gives the Secretary of State powers to intervene when a local authority exercises its functions unreasonably or fails to comply with duties under that Act. We are also looking at how we can strengthen independent oversight of local authorities and considering alternative routes of complaint for home-educating parents.
I will also write to my noble friend, and to the House, to clarify once again the fact that the failure to provide information to a local authority is not criminal. Rather it starts the whole process for a school attendance order, but in the interests of time I will set that out in a letter.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Lucas and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and, on his behalf, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, for their Amendments 65 to 66A. The measures in the Bill do not give local authorities any new powers to monitor, assess or dictate the content of education. The right reverend Prelate talked about a “cloud of suspicion”, and I think it would be unfortunate if he was right about that. We have striven to be clear about the scope of the powers and when any new powers are required. We are of the view that local authorities’ existing powers are already sufficient to assess the suitability of the education being provided. Therefore, I would like to be clear that the phrase in the Bill
“the means by which the child is being educated”
does not include the content of the education itself. I am happy to put that on the record. It is limited to matters such as whether the child is taught entirely at home or also attends education settings, which settings they are, and how much of their time the child spends there.
It is important to keep this existing drafting to ensure that local authority registers not only include information on where a child is being educated other than at school, such as entirely at home or at out-of-school education providers, but what proportion of their education they are receiving at those settings. Capturing this information will help local authorities identify those children who may be receiving most, if not all, of their education in unsuitable settings, such as illegal schools. Regulations will set out the details of the child’s education provision to be included in registers, as well as whether or not a child is assessed to be receiving a suitable education. I have tabled Amendment 86 to enable these, and other regulations concerning the collection and sharing of data, to be subject to increased parliamentary scrutiny.
Turning to Amendment 67, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that it is already the Government’s intention, through regulations, to require local authorities to record the reasons why a child is eligible for registration, and Amendments 68, 69 and 73 in my name make provision for this. We believe that this information will be invaluable for understanding why parents may be home educating, including identifying systemic issues such as insufficient SEN support or off-rolling—all concerns that your Lordships have raised, rightly, during the passage of the Bill.
It was always our intention that the power in new Section 436C(1)(d) should be used to prescribe the inclusion of information, such as this, aimed at promoting the education, welfare and safety of children, but we recognise the concerns raised about its breadth. We have therefore proposed its removal and replacement with a targeted list of matters, which would allow for the inclusion of information such as reasons for eligibility, the child’s protected characteristics, or whether they are a looked-after child, on a child protection plan or a child in need.
Amendments 85A, 94 and 118C concern the important issue of safeguarding data. It is our intention that data protection be a key area of focus during implementation, but to provide more reassurance we have sought to introduce additional protections for families. Amendment 70, in my name, will place in the Bill our existing commitment that no data that could identify a child or parent be published or made publicly available.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in discussing these amendments and thank the Minister, who I pay tribute to, as many others have done, for her long-suffering forbearance with all our discussions on various aspects of the Bill.
I accept that the Government are taking, and are planning to take, account of some of the concerns that have been raised today. My main issue, and the reason I have shifted from my earlier position on the Bill, is that my concerns have been raised by existing bad practice that we are seeing in the interaction between local authorities, the department and home-educating families. If that were not the case, and there were many more local authorities—which I applaud as well—doing a great job, I would not be standing before your Lordships today. However, sadly, if the current situation is that sufficient protection is not in place for home-educating families, what confidence do we have, until we actually see the detail later on, that these abuses by local authorities will not happen later?
My Amendment 72A, which would provide a warrant, is designed to allow us to pursue bad actors. We also have through the Children Act ways to pursue people who neglect their children, so we can protect the children. However, the problem is that we do not always use properly those rules and laws—or the data that we can collect, in a co-ordinated way, together, to pursue those bad actors. I genuinely still believe that this register will cause bad actors to go under the radar.
Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House. I am not saying that we should not have a register but it should be there for parents who do not believe that they are providing the level of education that the law requires them to provide. Those who are uncertain can seek advice and support from the local authority, but those who just want to get on with the job should be given the right not to be interfered with in doing so.
Lord Soley (Lab)
The noble Lord would give a right not to go on the register to those who he would say are educating their children okay. How on earth are you going to define that without giving the state even more powers? It is contradictory.
Lord Wei (Con)
The law already places a requirement on parents to educate their children to the standards that the law requires; therefore, I would just refer to the law. It is not for me or for us here to specify in detail in the Bill what that looks like, and the moment we do so, we will have overstepped the mark.
I am more satisfied by the Minister’s response on Amendment 85A, that greater care is being taken on the use of the information in this register, and I look forward to hearing about that.
Finally, on Amendment 86A, again, existing practice evidences to me that local authorities are not necessarily respecting parents’ rights not to be interpreted as not providing a good education by not providing information. That misunderstanding is dangerous, and I have not heard anything yet that satisfies me that the plans that will be put forward will solve that problem. If you refuse to provide information, you should not have a school attendance order put on to you. That may create problems, but it should be a principle. We have that in law: when you are arrested, you have the right to remain silent. Why, then, if you do not provide information in this instance, are you forced to send your child to school on the pretext that you are not providing a good education? There are many ways in which local authorities can get information. Forcing parents to do so by saying, “If you don’t do so, your child will be forced to go to school” is the wrong way to go about this. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Penn
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the broad power to prescribe information that must be contained in the register of children not in school. It is replaced with a more targeted power: see the new subsection (1A) inserted by the amendment in Baroness Barran’s name at clause 49, page 42, line 30.
“(1A) A register under section 436B must also contain such information about, or in connection with, the following matters in respect of a child registered in it as may be prescribed, to the extent that the local authority have the information or can reasonably obtain it—(a) the child’s protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010);(b) whether the child has any special educational needs, including whether the local authority maintain an EHC plan for the child;(c) any actions that have been taken by a local authority following, or in connection with, enquiries made by a local authority under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (local authority’s duty to investigate);(d) whether the child is a child in need for the purposes of Part 3 of the Children Act 1989 (see section 17(10) of that Act) and, if so, any actions that a local authority have taken in relation to the child under that Part and any services that a local authority have provided to the child in the exercise of functions conferred on them by section 17 of that Act;(e) whether the child is looked after by a local authority (within the meaning of section 22 of the Children Act 1989);(f) the reasons why the child meets Condition C in section 436B, including any information provided by a parent of the child as to those reasons or, in a case where a parent has not provided that information, the fact that they have not done so;(g) whether, under arrangements made under section 436A, the child has been identified as a child who is of compulsory school age but who is not a registered pupil at a school and is not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school;(h) the school or type of school (if any) that the child attends or has attended in the past;(i) whether support is being provided in relation to the child under section 436G and, if so, the nature of the support being provided;(j) any actions that have been taken by a local authority in relation to the child under sections 436I to 436P (school attendance orders);(k) any other information about the child’s characteristics, circumstances, needs or interactions with a local authority or educational institutions that the Secretary of State thinks should be included in the register for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding the education, safety or welfare of children.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the broad power currently in section 436C(1)(d) to make regulations detailing information to be included in the register of children not in school with a more targeted power which sets out the matters which regulations may cover.
“(4) No information from a register under section 436B may be published, or made accessible to the public, in a form—(a) which includes the name or address of a child who is eligible to be registered under that section or of a parent of such a child, or(b) from which the identity of such a child or parent can be deduced, whether from the information itself or from that information taken together with any other published information.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would prohibit publication of any information from a register under section 436B which identifies a child who is eligible for registration or a parent of such a child, or allows such a child or parent to be identified.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment reduces the obligation on parents to provide information to the local authority when their child becomes eligible to be registered on the children not in school register: it would mean that they would only need to provide information that they have about their child and themselves and the other parent, and not the information prescribed by regulations.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment reduces the obligation on parents to provide information, on request from a local authority, in cases where the child is on the children not in school register: it would mean that they would only need to provide the information mentioned in section 436C(1)(a) to (c), and not any information prescribed in regulations under the new subsection (1A) (inserted by the amendment in Baroness Barran’s name at clause 49, page 42, line 30).
Baroness Penn
“(aa) must provide the other local authority with any information relating to the child that is prescribed under section 436C(1A) that they have,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in Baroness Barran’s name at clause 49, page 42, line 30.
Lord Lucas
“(A1) Local authorities must—(a) recognise that the first responsibility for educating a child lies with its parents,(b) be supportive of those who elect to educate their children at home,(c) recognise that home education is of itself not a safeguarding issue, and(d) acknowledge that in many instance the decision to home educate reflects failures by other institutions of the state.”
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 74 I will speak also to Amendments 75 and 78. It is important in the context of the relationship between local authorities and home educators that there is a very clear statement of that relationship. I have set out a couple of versions of that in Amendments 74 and 75. I would be content if this was to find its way to the top of the guidance, which is a document that both local authorities and home educators will need to be able to refer to and get clear guidance from. Amendment 74 contains a statement of the fundamentals of the relationship which seem important to me.
On Amendment 78, I will defer to the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, when she speaks to Amendment 77. I am thoroughly in support of what she is proposing. That home-educated children should be enabled to take exams has been a long-running problem and ought to be one of the things that we and local authorities are doing to support them.
I am also very much in favour of the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Storey, and look forward to hearing from them. If we happen to have the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on the line, which I hope we do, I think her direction of asking local authorities to take account of expert advice is important. I know of several occasions when local authorities have said, “It doesn’t count. It doesn’t matter. We’re interested only in what we hear directly from the parent. Expert advice is not something we listen to.” I do not think that is the right attitude; the attitude described by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is right. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 77 is in my name, and I am delighted to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. This is a very modest amendment so I hope the Minister can agree it without too much difficulty—one always lives in hope in this place.
Home educators save the country thousands of pounds because they are not using state-funded education systems, but they often have difficulty finding a test centre for their children when they want to take public examinations, and when they do find one they have to pay exam fees, which can amount to hundreds of pounds, for the privilege of doing so. Of course, many home educators are not wealthy and struggle to find the money for the fees, but surely home-educated children are as entitled as other children to have public recognition of their learning in the form of examinations. This amendment would guarantee that home-educated pupils had a place at which to sit their national exams and financial assistance to ensure that no child is denied recognition of achievement because their parents cannot afford the fees.
As I say, it is a very modest amendment and I hope the Minister will look on it favourably.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Hunt, who is in the Moses Room grappling with procurement, I will speak to his Amendment 79, to which I also put my name. It would require a local authority to have regard to the case of a SEND child and to listen to the wishes of the child and the parent around provision decisions; the information and support necessary to enable participation in those decisions should be present.
It is an important amendment, given that in so many of the cases that we have heard about where parents are anxious about the Bill’s measures in respect of home education, they are parents of children with some form of special educational need or disability. They have felt that their child’s needs are not being properly addressed in the maintained sector and have therefore chosen to home educate their children. It is important that there is some safeguard for that group in particular, so that the parents’ and child’s wishes are properly considered in the context of what we are trying to do in the Bill.
I also support Amendment 74, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, which I supported in Committee, makes an important case for support for sitting national examinations and the cost of doing so. By consequence, I support Amendment 78.
Finally, having listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Wei, on the previous grouping, and given the problem that the Local Government Ombudsman does not apply in the cases of parents of home-educated children, I think it is important that there is some kind of independent complaints service or ombudsman service. I shall be interested in the Minister’s response on how that independent voice to handle complaints about local authorities, with the diverse range of services that they might provide to support home-educating parents, might be provided.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it might be appropriate if I speak first to Amendment 76, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, just mentioned—and I thank him for his support—and as I think we have heard from around the Chamber, if you are dealing with a very rare condition, a teacher or the school cannot be expected to know everything about it.
What we expect teachers to deal with now has expanded. Special educational needs have been spoken about already, and we have a better understanding of them: it is not some fad or anything that is made up about various conditions. I refer the House to my declared interest in dyslexia; that is just one. All these conditions will be present in the classroom, and we now expect schools to deal with them. Expecting them to deal with every medical condition that might affect the way children should be taught is beyond the pale. Commonly occurring ones? Yes. The rest of them? No. There should be a duty on the school and the education authority to communicate and to take it on board when something else arises. That is quite straightforward.
Indeed, many of the amendments in this group are about establishing that supportive relationship between such bodies and home educators. I hope that we hear some supportive words from the Government on that, and on Amendment 84, in the name of my noble friend Lord Storey, which makes provision for some sort of co-ordination of support for those who are home educating, and a relationship. I am hopeful that the Minister will have something positive to say in this area. We need to support those who are, let us face it, at the most basic level, saving the public purse some money. If they are doing it properly, let us help them.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 118 and in support of Amendment 74. As I said before, I have real concerns. I accept the intentions of the Government as stated by my noble friend, and I hope that this summer will provide an opportunity to come up with independent appeals processes which are not operated just by local authorities or the Government. The current regime, where something like that is already in place, is clearly insufficient. Families are being left in the lurch—often, as I said, for a very long time.
I shall not speak for long. I have already spoken about my amendment in the previous debate, so others can refer to Hansard on that, but the principle is that we would have a voluntary, independent person who would serve as an adviser to local authorities where they want to investigate what is going on in home education, but also provide a mediation resource for families so that they do not have to resort to expensive and lengthy processes such as judicial reviews. I was speaking to some judges over lunch last week who said that there is a massive waiting list in the courts. Why should we add to that through the Bill? Instead, we should provide an independent means by which issues can be resolved, such as the one I described here in London and elsewhere.
That is why I tabled Amendment 118, but I support the idea captured in Amendment 74 that there should be recognition that home education itself is not a crime or anything negative; in fact, it is positive for society. I think the noble Lord, Lord Soley, would agree on that point, so let us make sure that those hard-working, hard-pressed officials who are trying to work with home educators truly understand that in law.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, in the debate on the last group, I completely forgot to say thank you to the Minister, who is not in her place at the moment, for meeting me not once but twice. She also met two home educators, and I like to think that that influenced the amendments. I have never had as many emails and contacts as I have had on home education, so it would be very good if the Bill’s changes could be expanded to include the concerns of those people.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Did the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, want to speak to his amendments in this group?
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness very much. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was giving me a signal from the other side of the Chamber, and I was wondering what it was, but now I know, and I am very grateful for knowing.
I must start with an apology to the whole House for the massive number of manuscript amendments tabled by me to remove, one by one, all the clauses in Parts 3 and 4. This was a mistake by me. When I went to the Legislation Office this morning, I said, “Can I table a simple amendment that runs on the lines ‘leave out Parts 3 and 4’?” I was told it could not be done that way, but only by individually asking for each clause to be left out of the Bill. I should have realised that I needed only to give one example of my proposal, and then your Lordships would not have received this massive number of manuscript amendments. For that, I again apologise.
I should also say that I have not, save for one occasion, which I will come to in a moment, spoken so far on the Bill. I sat through parts of Second Reading and many of the sittings in Committee, but I did not intervene. The one exception was in Committee, when the Clock of our House was stuck at 10 minutes to 3 pm. I thought a literary comment could be brought into the Bill’s proceedings and I reminded the Committee of Rupert Brooke’s poem, “The Old Vicarage, Grantchester”, which ends with a reference to whether the village church clock in Grantchester was still standing “at ten to three” and was there “honey still for tea”. That was my little contribution as a matter of literature on a Bill which, after all, is to do with education.
I have thought very carefully, particularly last weekend, and concluded that, in the interests of the whole House, Parts 3 and 4 should be removed, not as a wrecking amendment but as a constructive one, so that the provisions in Parts 3 and 4 can properly be looked through and thought about. I am supported in that view by my noble friend Lord Grocott, who said at the beginning of the debate that the Bill is beyond repair. The Opposition Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said that the Bill is in a very bad state. That supports my general proposition, that the entirety of Parts 3 and 4 should be removed.
In making this proposal to the House, I am not denying that the many improvements that noble Lords have added should be considered. As part of a reconsideration of this Bill, those improvements might well find themselves in it. I recognised at the weekend that a new broom needs to be taken to the whole of Parts 3 and 4.
Coming back to this House after an absence of 22 years, one is struck by the increasing disease in all our Bills of what I would call particularisation. If I have invented that word, I apologise, particularly to the editors of Hansard. I refer to the ever-increasing perceived need to place everything in the Bill, to the point where our Bills are becoming more detailed and more complicated—and pretty incomprehensible. We seem to think that our job is done when the Bill passes and have insufficient thought for the users of our Bills. Look, for example, in the previous Session, at the police Act, the health Act, or the Nationality and Borders Act, and think of those who must enforce them—police officers for the police Act, health workers for the health Act, and customs officers for the Nationality and Borders Act, to say nothing of the tasks that are thrown up to judges and lawyers who interpret the terms of our Bills.
This Bill, in its present form, has no fewer than 40 pages of obligations on home schooling and local authorities. This is a vast section of the Bill, and it is those 40 pages that I ask your Lordships to reconsider. It is as though someone in the Department for Education has been thinking of everything under the sun—and, I must add, the moon—which can be put into this Bill, the result being these 40 pages. This must come to an end.
I now come to a problem that was entirely new to me. I met the five home-schooling mothers, several of whom are listening to this debate. As the Minister may remember, I introduced three of them to the Ministers when we were in Committee, the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Penn, who kindly had a word with them about their concerns, although it was only brief. I am not denying that a lot of noble Lords have expressed a concern and I am not at all deriding all the work that has been put into the Bill by noble Lords.
When you come back to this House after a long time, you also have a freshness when looking at the issues. In this case, I looked at the Education Act 1944, a very important social Act brought in under Rab Butler, later to become Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. I also looked at the more recent Education Act 1996. I have several cited cases, one in 1980, when Lord Donaldson presided, and one in 1985, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, presided, for which they each provided further help and guidance over the application of the then provisions. As recently as 2019, the Department for Education issued statutory guidance. I am not going to read the terms of those two Acts or the statutory guidance. Suffice it to say that for both Acts, the recent statutory guidance gave clear support for home schooling, and little interference.
What then has gone wrong? It appears—I emphasise that word—that education officers in a few powerful local authorities have set their face against home schooling, believing that pupils should be at the school with which they were provided. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, spoke of abusive behaviour by certain local authorities. I emphasise “appears” because the Minister, when I spoke to her, was strongly of the view that this was not the right interpretation. However, we have heard a different view from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Therefore, why have these provisions gone into the Bill? This is quite different from the stance taken in 1944 and 1996. It appears that the views of those education officers in a limited number of boroughs—I will not name the boroughs here but will in a meeting with the Minister—have wrongly persuaded the Government to bring in the Bill in the way that we find it.
I have already told the Minister that I will not divide the House and that remains my position. The Minister has kindly agreed to see me and some of the concerned home-schooling mothers and their advisers.
Finally, I ask the Minister not to forget the World War I poets. I could name them, as I did just now in a conversation with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, but I just leave that as a final thought among the Ministers. I hope that she will not neglect those poets, and the literature that they produced, when she sums up.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will start with Amendments 74 and 75, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas. The law is clear that parents have a right to educate their children at home, and local authorities should already be working collaboratively with parents to ensure the best outcome for the child. We are keen to ensure that home-educating parents, and local authorities, are fully supported in ensuring that the education received at home is suitable. Therefore, as my noble friend Lady Barran said, as part of the implementation of the Bill we will be reviewing our existing guidance and publishing new statutory guidance for local authorities on their “children not in school” responsibilities, which will include advice on how they should discharge their new support duty.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. If she has any kind of assessment of the cost of requiring local authorities to cover that cost for parents, it would be really useful to share that with noble Lords taking part in the debate.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am not sure whether that assessment has been made. If it has, I will be happy to share it. As we have said several times, there are at least two more stages to go on the guidance. One is a collaborative process to produce the draft guidance, and then a consultation process. There are plenty of opportunities as we go along to look at it—for example, whether exam costs would be included in the statutory guidance. I will find out whether we have that assessment and, if we do, I will share it.
I turn to Amendment 118 from my noble friend Lord Wei. As we have already discussed, several routes for complaint already exist for home-educating parents. But, as my noble friend said in response to the previous group, we have heard concerns raised by noble Lords about whether the different current routes of complaint are sufficient. We are also continuing to consider what more we can do to support home-educating parents and strengthen independent oversight of local authorities, such as exploring alternative routes of complaint.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 97ZZA to 100F from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, which would remove Clauses 53 to 66 from the Bill. The overarching purpose of Clauses 53 to 56 is to improve the consistency of attendance support pupils and families receive to help pupils attend their school regularly. These clauses are an important part of the Government’s overall approach to providing more consistent support for pupils and families in order to help children attend school before legal intervention is considered. Clauses 57 to 66 concern the regulation of independent educational institutions and help us to ensure that all children receive a safe and suitably broad education. Extending the registration requirement and improving investigatory powers will ensure that full-time settings serving children of compulsory school age are regulated. Other measures improve the regulatory regime for independent schools, including by creating a power to suspend the registration of a school because pupils are at risk of harm.
I heard the noble Lord’s request for a meeting and my noble friend is very happy to do that because, as I think she has been at been at pains to stress throughout the passage of the Bill, we want to make sure that we engage with a broad range of voices from the home-education community to be clear about what we are aiming to do with the Bill. It is not at all about reducing or interfering with the right to home education, but just ensuring that we have the proper processes in place to make sure that the best interests of all children are protected while doing so.
Lord Storey (LD)
Before the Minister finishes, will she respond to Amendment 77 from my noble friend Lady Garden, about examination costs? Maybe she will have that in mind that when she meets these home educators, as it might be an issue to talk to them about.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I believe I responded about examination costs. In fact, I had an intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on it. One of the things I said to him was that in the statutory guidance we are seeking to create, we will look at the support duty. We are looking to work collaboratively with local authorities and home educators to hear all those different views in order to help us co-create that guidance. Then we will also consult on it. We are keen to ensure that we hear those views as part of that process.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Lucas will feel able to withdraw his amendment and other noble Lords will not press theirs.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, will she receive from me great gratitude for her willingness and that of her fellow Minister to see home schoolers, several of whom are in the House this evening, and those advising them? They have helped a lot and I hope they will help the Ministers a lot too.
Baroness Penn (Con)
That is very much appreciated. I also pass on to my noble friend the Minister the thanks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for engaging with home educators. I emphasise that we see that as a very important part of the process for the Bill.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to hear that the Government continue to give thought to the question of an independent appeal. The current system, where the first appeal goes to the local authority, is obviously right; you want to resolve as much as you can without going outside. But, beyond that, the idea that the Secretary of State provides a satisfactory route of appeal really does not stand up. First, there are far too many relationships between the Department for Education and local authorities to allow independence. Secondly, I believe I am right—although the Minister may contradict me if she wishes—that, in the entire history of this right of appeal, the Secretary of State has not granted any, but he has come down in favour of the local authority on every single occasion. That may or may not be true—as I say, I hope the Box will be able to confirm it when we return to this issue in two groups’ time—but that there should be an independent appeal is important.
My noble friend Lord Wei’s proposal for an ombudsman is one that should be considered, although there are others. One way or another, there should be a point where someone truly independent casts their eye over what the home educator is doing and how the local authority has handled it and says either, “Yes, come on: get into line,” or “No, I can see here that the local authority has pushed things too far and ought to take a step or two back.” That would make a big contribution to keeping the relationship straight between home educators and local authorities.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Storey—I apologise if it was not—who said earlier that this bit of the Bill meant that local authorities had to give support. I can see nothing that makes it compulsory. I hope we will get the Government to give this a budget so there is an indication that support ought to be given, but at the moment I do not believe there is anything compulsory about it.
My noble friend Lady Penn said local authorities could consult a doctor when they consider it appropriate. I think the right balance is that the home educators ought to be able to able to evince that evidence when they consider it appropriate too, and the local authority ought then to pay attention to it. From cases that I have seen, I rather doubt that that is the arrangement at the moment. However, as my noble friend asked, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with the amendment in Clause 49, page 46, line 7, is aimed at ensuring that guidance given to local authorities in relation to school attendance under sections 436B and 436G of the Education Act 1996 must be subject to the affirmative regulation making process.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I also have Amendments 81 and 83 in this group. I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lucas, is supporting Amendment 80 and my noble friend Lord Knight is supporting Amendments 80, 81 and 83. I have just been in the Procurement Bill debate in Grand Committee, so if I repeat points that have already been made then I apologise to noble Lords. These amendments are concerned with Part 3, the provisions in relation to school attendance and the duty to register children not in school. The Minister will know of the concerns; in fact she has just reflected in her wind-up speech on some of those that have been expressed by noble Lords.
My particular interest is the special needs of children being educated at home with special educational needs and mental health issues. It is fair to say that many parents already find that the current attendance policy and enforcement system can have a negative impact on mental health and well-being. They are concerned about the ramifications of the Bill: the register, the live attendance tracker, the tighter lacing of attendance enforcement and the fast track to fines and prosecutions.
It is clear that Ministers have listened to the debate, and I am very grateful for the amendments that have been tabled, which are aimed at providing assurance to families over the information to be prescribed, its intended use and what can be published, and to give Parliament increased scrutiny of the use of delegated powers concerning those matters. My three amendments encourage the Government to go a little further in terms of reassurance.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 82 in this group, asking that local authorities give reasons when they choose to deviate from guidance. I hope this will be dealt with in guidance rather than in the Bill, but it is important that both local authorities and home educators come to regard the guidance as something to which they can resort for support. Therefore, when local authorities need to go outside the guidance, as they may, that should be clearly explained.
I very much support the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has proposed, in particular Amendment 81. It is important that there is a strong set of guidance around attendance. This is a change of structure for local authorities. They are taking on much more of a responsibility that was formerly shared with schools. We will need them to reach deeper into the reasons for non-attendance and to deploy other strengths that local authorities have to deal with those reasons, going well beyond the usual educational provision. To have a set of guidance that enables them to do that well and to have ways of sharing good experience will be really helpful. In the next group we come to the punitive side of this. We really ought to be strong in making sure that as few families as possible get tipped into that, and guidance seems to be a clear part of that.
I have one question on government Amendment 99, which applies to regulations passed
“before the end of the session of Parliament in which the Schools Act 2022 is passed.”
I wonder whether it should refer just to the first passing of the guidance. Given the extended timescale on this Bill and the consultations we hope to have, it may run beyond that. The Government are really saying that they do not want this to last for ever. It should cover the first issuing of regulations, whenever that may happen to occur, and we should not have to rush things just because we have this in the Bill. If it is passed next year, will it still be the Schools Act 2022 or will it be the Schools Act 2023?
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I support the thrust of these amendments. They follow on from my noble friend Lady Brinton’s amendment on the fact that specialist guidance and help will be needed. The education sector is going into an area where it does not expect to have the expertise readily at hand. It may have to go and find it, and the parents are often the people who have done the finding. I hope that, when the Minister comes to answer, the Government will give us a little insight into how they expect to handle this process. We are talking about often very seldom-occurring incidents, which means that we cannot expect there to be group memory. These are incidents occurring not only infrequently but over long periods of time; certain combinations of events come through. Stress tends to trigger mental health incidents. If a child happens to have been failing at school, they and their parents will have more stress. It does not take a genius to take it to the next step. I hope the Minister will give us an idea of the Government’s thinking and how they are proposing to address these very real concerns.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 119, and am generally supportive of a lot of the other amendments relating to mental health. Amendment 119 is conceived as a means to cut through what I believe will be quite a lot of court cases and judicial reviews. As we have discussed on this grouping, there will be instances in which local authorities make a judgment about home education, whether in the case of mental health or involving families with a particular faith or philosophy around education. My concern is that, even if the Government in their own impact report feel that they have satisfied all human rights obligations—bear in mind that concerns are raised in that report that Articles 8 and 9 will be intruded or infringed upon to some degree—how can we be so sure that the local official in the local authority has the expertise to make a judgment? In some cases, given the context or circumstances, they may go beyond what is right in terms of human rights. This may lead in turn to many judicial reviews. I believe that in the home education community there are already attempts to start raising the funds for such action. That will be costly for all concerned. It may delay for many years the implementation of what the Government are trying to do here, so I ask the Minister to look at this whole area.
A lot hinges on the composition of this consultation committee, review committee or implementation committee. In the interests of transparency, I would love to know the criteria for inviting those to join such a group and to have reassurance as to whether they will be preselected to be favourable towards the Government’s current views or will be genuinely independent members with genuine expertise in some of the really sensitive matters that will be dealt with as the Government seek to implement this.
I can tell from the House’s view that, from my point of view, this part of this campaign must come to an end. I will not seek to divide the House any further today, but I know that there will be many discussions in my party over the summer, whoever the two candidates for the Conservative Party leadership are. With all due respect, I believe this is not a Conservative Bill. Our party is about many things but really it is about letting people get on with their lives, and many aspects of the Bill currently do not make me feel that it is following that principle. I think many home educators will write to their MPs and come along to various hustings around the country to make that view known to those candidates. We should probably ask them what they think of this Bill so that we can get an early view as to what will happen to it in the autumn.
I would be pleased to know more from my noble friend the Minister how the guidance provided will be consulted on, including with those of us who have spoken in this debate. Clearly, a lot hinges and rides on that.
I will stop there, but I think my noble friend the Minister and the Government have heard strongly the views of many in this Chamber, including those such as me who do not believe the Bill is a great idea. It is now up to them to see if they can get it through the Commons and into statute and, in so doing, make sure they look after the welfare—as I believe they claim to do—of home educators up and down this country.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I will not speak to the Tory leadership election.
We support the approach suggested in many of the amendments in this group. To pluck one out of the air at random, Amendment 81 tabled by my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Knight, suggesting a code of practice—which is really just another way of sharing best practice—is a positive suggestion. We recognise completely that poor attendance can be a symptom of a much deeper problem and that schools often take a holistic approach already. The amendment suggests that families and organisations with experience of overcoming barriers to attendance be included in the Government’s thinking. It is a very good idea and seems to be the right approach. Even if we do not divide the House on this today, it is a good suggestion for the Government to consider this code of practice further.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for hotfooting it over here from the Grand Committee. I also thank him and my noble friend Lord Lucas for their Amendments 80, 82 and 83, which I will speak to together.
I mentioned earlier that the Government are already seeking the power for the Secretary of State to give local authorities in England statutory guidance that they must have regard to. Local authorities will not be able to diverge from it unless there is a coherent reason to do so.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has been in this House even longer than I have, and it is amazing what we have learned today about what happens to the date on a Bill—though 2023 maybe optimistic, who knows?
The noble Baroness has reflected on the importance of the guidance to be given to local authorities to approach this new role in a sensitive way. I support the general principles here. Whatever our views, that brings us together, because it will be essential that local authorities do the job properly, and they need support to do so. The statutory guidance and consultation she referred to are very welcome indeed.
Then noble Baroness felt that my suggestion that the guidance should be brought in through a regulation would be rigid. However, in our debates, today and previously, we have recognised the importance of this guidance. It is in some ways as important as what is set out in statute. I would have thought at least on the first occasion, when the guidance is brought in, it should have the benefit of parliamentary scrutiny. I think it is something we ought to come back to on Report. If she accepted my code of practice, that would be a way of getting the flexibility that I understand she needs, alongside statutory provisions. It has been a very useful and constructive debate,
Baroness Penn (Con)
Just briefly, I should make it clear to the noble Lord that we are at Report stage and I do not think we will be returning with amendments from the Government at Third Reading.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
The noble Baroness almost tempts me to push this to a vote, but I would not be allowed to. I have come straight from Committee to Report—I apologise. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barran
“(3) In section 569(2A) (regulations subject to affirmative procedure), for “regulations under section 550ZA(3)(f) or 550ZC(7) may” substitute “—(a) the first regulations under 436C(1)(c), (1A) or (3),(b) the first regulations under section 436F(1),(c) regulations under section 436F(2),(d) regulations under section 550ZA(3)(f), or(e) regulations under section 550ZC(7),may”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would make the first regulations made under section 436C(1)(c), (1A) (as inserted by the amendment in Baroness Barran’s name at clause 49, page 42, line 30) and (3), the first regulations made under section 436F(1) and any regulations under section 436F(2) subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure.
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to reserve penalties under this Clause for substantial misbehaviour.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in moving this amendment I will also speak to my other amendments in this group. This group is looking at the stage of the process at which penalties start to come in. I feel that the wording of the Bill is at the moment far too hair-trigger. The words that Amendment 87 seeks to replace mean that a local authority must tip a home-educating parent, or a parent, into the school attendance order process if they have failed to provide any scintilla of information. That could be anything; it could just be that they have spelt something wrong or have not got the date right, or whatever, and does not seem appropriate.
I am not sure that the Government will find my wording appropriate either, but we ought to look to soften this to make it clear that for these hard-pressed parents, an ordinary error of forgetfulness or a failure which does not find its roots in opposition or deliberate obfuscation should not be punished immediately. It should be something the local authority should seek to engage with.
I came across one example where the local authority had been corresponding with a good home-educating parent and had decided that it really wanted to see examples of the child’s work. It is one of those arguable questions you come across as to whether the experts’ report that had been provided should have been sufficient. It did not then e-mail the parent to say, “If you continue in this, we will tip you into school attendance orders”. It wrote by snail mail, to an address which was wrong, and made no other reference to it until six months later when the school attendance order appeared. There needs to be a much more active relationship and there should not be things in the Bill which make a lazy relationship between the local authority and parents acceptable. The local authority ought to be working with the parent to get things right.
Amendment 88 seeks to restore the current timescale of 15 days, rather than the 10 days in the Bill. This is the crucial step; it is the point when things get serious. Parents ought to be given a reasonable length of time and 15 days is what is accepted. The Government have argued us out of all sorts of other extensions of timescales, but this one is crucial.
Amendments 90 and 92 come back to the subject of a tribunal, which we have covered. It is really important that the Government do something. I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on Amendment 95 in wanting to reduce the maximum prison sentence to three months.
In Amendment 97, I am urging the Government to provide proper funding to local authorities as they take on these additional duties on school attendance. Particularly post Covid, this is clearly a complicated problem with its roots in all sorts of aspects of society. Local authorities ought to be properly supported to get it right and become really effective at helping children to get into school.
I also look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, speaking to Amendment 100. He has put his finger on a really serious thing there.
My Amendment 110 suggests that Ofsted should be able to inspect local authorities on their performance with elective home education and absence. I do not want all these things we have suggested to come into force—it would just be ridiculous to have everything—but we need some structure for oversight of local authorities, so that they feel motivated to improve. Ofsted might be one of the options, so I hope that the Government will keep that under consideration.
I look forward to what other people will have to say on this group and beg to move my Amendment 87.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely and I invite her to speak now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He talked about hair-trigger actions for the school attendance order process. He is right that we need clarity and common sense, an active relationship with parents and a way of holding local authorities to account where things have gone wrong.
Amendments 89, 95 and 96 in this group are in my name. Amendments 89 and 96 echo my amendment in the first group, which my noble friend Lord Storey spoke to. Many Peers have reported specific cases where, despite the Minister saying that this is meant to be about schools and local authorities working together with parents, that is just not happening in practice. Parents are definitely made to feel that they are always in the wrong, so I thank my noble friends Lord Storey and Lord Addington, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others, for their comments in that group that despite some schools and LAs having very good practice, unfortunately there are some which do not.
Noble Lords know that I have focused on pupils with medical conditions because some of the most concerning incidents relate to schools and local authorities making decisions that fly in the face of the pupil’s doctor. It should not be possible for education people to countermand expert advice. There are other categories, too: a looked-after child, a young carer or even a young offender may all have—in the eyes of the expert, such as their social worker or youth offending officer—a good reason why they should not be in school. Schools should not be able to countermand that.
Other noble Lords have given examples of some of that poor practice, and I cite one example I have heard about: of a paediatric oncology specialist telling a school with cases of an infectious disease—that could be Covid but could also be measles—that a pupil with cancer on strong chemotherapy should not be in school as they were severely immunosuppressed and that if this pupil caught the infectious disease, there was a high risk that it would be fatal. At present, the guidance says that there must be a partnership between parents, schools and health professionals in determining the best route forward. Unfortunately, the school can still choose to ignore that advice.
I thank the Minister for saying on the first day of Report that a headteacher disregarding specific advice would be acting unreasonably and would therefore be in breach of their duty. The problem is that no one knows that—certainly not headteachers or health professionals, and especially not parents or the pupils themselves. I am afraid that the same is true for some local authorities too, which is why these amendments are laid, to ensure that a poor process that starts in a school does not just continue on a conveyor belt. I repeat the point I made at earlier stages of the Bill: the current arrangements do not work. If we especially want to protect children with medical conditions and ensure that they have the same experience as other children, frankly, the arrangements need to be more explicit.
Amendment 95 is a probing amendment about parents who have repeatedly failed to comply with school attendance orders and not paid fines, and who can now—under the Bill—be sentenced to a prison term of up to 51 weeks. The previous maximum level was three months; that is a very large difference and, if used, is likely to lead to the local authority having to provide foster carers or, even more drastically, putting the children in care if a parent or both parents were imprisoned for 51 weeks. Surely, that is the exact opposite of what should be happening. The whole point of this part of the Bill is to encourage children into the stability of education and learning, in which their parents should have a role, and if things have gone wrong then this is a step too far.
I am grateful to the Minister for the meeting last week at which, in light of the debate we had in Committee, we discussed this. She also said in a letter that there was no intention ever to use 51 weeks and that it was a technical provision, solely because that would be the maximum sentence a magistrates’ court can give. This seems extremely strange to me, and slightly worrying. It is wonderful that the current Government say that they would never use it, but what of a future Government? I look forward to hearing the Minister confirm at the Dispatch Box exactly what she said in her letter, so that, should the 51-week term be used, the ministerial intentions when the Bill went through your Lordships’ House could be prayed in aid.
Above all, we need clarity. We need to ensure that this part of the Bill does not act solely as a form of prosecution. Surely, all the good intentions regarding parents who wish to educate their children at home should be understood. Schools and local authorities should really understand when there are genuine reasons why a child may not be in school.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am going to speak to Amendment 97ZA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. Unfortunately, because of today’s conditions, she is not able to travel to your Lordships’ House.
If the noble Baroness were here, I think she would first say that a lot of progress has been made in how we support those with learning disabilities and autistic people in the last parliamentary Session. The Health and Care Act saw the introduction of mandatory training for all health and social care staff to ensure they are better able to work with people who can otherwise struggle to find a voice within the complex system designed to support them. She would also refer to the Down Syndrome Act, which acknowledges the gaps between the intent of existing legislation such as the Equality Act and the Care Act and its implementation in practice. That is a rationale which underpins the amendment I have signed.
We know that many autistic people and those with learning disabilities can have complex needs across the breadth of the public sector and experience so many barriers to accessing support. What happens in childhood can determine their lifelong trajectory, whether this be in a positive or negative way. For example, for some children and young people this may be the beginning of a downward spiral of school exclusions and admissions to mental health facilities. That is how the journey to long-term segregation in an ATU begins—journeys that the Department of Health and Social Care’s oversight panel chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, is currently trying to reverse.
Clause 54, “School attendance policies”, gives little regard to the way that neurodiversity and chronic health conditions can affect a young person’s development and how their educational needs may differ from their peers. This is important because people with learning disabilities and autistic people have higher rates of physical health and mental health comorbidities. This is particularly so for autistic children in mainstream schools.
I am very grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, wrote to Peers following Second Reading to try to address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, that the attendance clauses in the Bill would penalise pupils with SEND and those with autism. In the letter she said:
“We are clear that schools should authorise absence due to both physical and mental illness. Schools should only request parents to provide medical evidence to support absence where they have genuine and reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the illness. We are also clear that schools pressuring a parent to remove their child from the school is a form of off-rolling, which is never acceptable.”
That was very welcome indeed, but as she knows, the words of Ministers do not always turn out to be adopted in practice everywhere throughout the school system.
The importance of this is in the statistics. In 2022, her department stated that persistent absence—defined as missing over 10% of available sessions—involved 12.1% of students; hence the legitimate concern about this, which I understand. However, the rate is nearly three times higher among autistic pupils, at over 30%. Exclusions of autistic children have more than doubled from 2,282 in 2010 to over 5,000 in 2020. There is a big question here: why is it so much higher?
In 2020, Totsika et al published what I think is the only peer-reviewed study into school non-attendance for autistic students in the UK. They found that non-attendance occurred in 43% of their sample of just under 500 students and that autistic children miss 22% of school. Some 32% of absences were attributable to illness and medical appointments, and:
“Truancy was almost non-existent.”
This study found that going to a mainstream school, as opposed to a specialist school, increased the chances of missing school by nearly 100%.
Autistic people experience higher rates of physical and mental health difficulties compared to their neurotypical peers. Anxiety is a predictor of school non-attendance for all children, but we also know that anxiety is more common in autistic children, with approximately 40% having a clinical diagnosis of an anxiety disorder and another 40% experiencing subclinical anxiety symptoms.
The DfE has guidelines around managing non-attendance and support for students with SEND or medical conditions. This includes a duty to ensure suitable education, including alternative provisions or reasonable adjustments and that the local council should
“make sure your child is not without access to education for more than 15 school days”.
However, we know from experience with the Autism Act 2009 and the Down Syndrome Act that, just because it is written in guidance, it does not mean it happens in practice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, shared with me the example of one parent who wrote:
“My local authority has not accepted medical evidence that my daughter can’t attend school due to severe anxiety... Now we won’t get tuition help and all her further absences will be unauthorised!”
This is despite supporting evidence by a chartered psychologist. She goes on to say:
“Imagine forcing someone with a physical illness to come to school when a doctor says they can’t?”
Another parent has written to us saying that
“Fining parents for school absence due to school-based anxiety is … counterproductive”.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, is based not on a few cases but many. It seeks to confirm the Government’s commitment to ensuring that SEND students are not disproportionately penalised by the Bill. There is a duty to implement existing guidance in day-to-day practice. I hope the Government will be sympathetic to the intent of the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I would like to speak briefly to Amendment 91, in my name in this group, which aims to clarify the provisions on school attendance orders to ensure that they should only be issued when, in the opinion of the local authority, this course of action is in the best interest of the child in addition to being expedient.
The Minister may remember that we debated this in Committee. The Bill says clearly that school attendance orders can be issued where “it is expedient” to do so. I had an amendment which said that it should be in the best interests of the child, not that it could be “expedient” to issue a school attendance order. In reply, the Minister said that the word “expedient” was in the 1996 Act anyway and that the test would be the same.
For avoidance of doubt on this matter and to have a clear record, it seems that the best way to proceed is to take my amendment, in which I have not deleted the word “expedient” but have added that it is
“in the best interest of the child”
to have a school attendance order. The benefit would be much greater clarity, and I hope the Minister can agree to my suggestion.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 100, in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Shipley. I hoped that we could have spent the same amount of time talking about the most disadvantaged children in our society as we have on home education. These are young people, mainly with special educational needs, from the most deprived communities and from ethnic minorities, who are permanently excluded from school. What we do with some of these children reminds me of Victorian education, to be honest.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 97A, 118J and 118K.
We have to remind ourselves that the issue of unregistered school settings and the claim that some people are home schooling in order to send children to such settings is a problem that we have long had. Many people here will remember that Section 96 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 was established specifically to make sure that such settings were deemed unlawful. Unfortunately, we found that the law was so difficult to enforce that we have had a massive increase in the number of unregistered school settings, creating much more of the problem that we have had to deal with. Indeed, there have been only three prosecutions, and the first one took 10 years to take place. The number of schools that have been reported to Ofsted exceeds, I believe, a thousand. Hundreds have been identified by Ofsted but have been very difficult to deal with. Enforcement has been so poor that many schools deregistered to unregistered schools to avoid any form of regulation because they felt that they could operate in that way.
The position has been very clear. Departmental advice for collaborative working between the Department for Education, Ofsted and local authorities in March 2018 stated:
“Over recent times, we have seen a rise in the number of institutions operating outside the regulatory regime as unregistered independent schools; this involves a criminal offence and conduct that may be putting children at risk of harm, denying them a suitable education, and limiting their life chances. Tackling unregistered independent schools is a priority—and one that involves joint working and collaboration.”
Unfortunately, even in those times it was very clear that the provisions available to Ofsted, local authorities and the Government were very weak. That is why these measures in the Bill have been so warmly welcomed.
However, there are issues on which I am still trying to probe the Government and encourage them to think of creative ways in which to draft measures. It would be a tragedy that, 15 years after we thought we had solved a problem that had existed for decades beforehand, we were in the same position, in that the provisions were insufficiently flexible and strong to make sure that the law is properly enforced and that that which is meant to be outlawed is so done; and that if it were seen to be unable to be enforced effectively, we would have to wait another 15 years in order to do that.
Amendment 97A tries to deal with those who are enablers of the use of unregistered educational settings and who do not take a formal role in the structure of that educational setting. Such people may provide a facility or other forms of support, be that a location or funding that goes towards individuals who are providing these skills, but they structure it in a way that does not make them culpable in any way as an educational institution. I believe that the Government are missing a trick if they do not deal with those people who help these things continue.
Amendment 118J seeks to give Ofsted a more general, anti-avoidance power. This would allow it to join the dots in situations where its intelligence and information, in matters raised by a parent or parents in this situation, make it clear that it can take a broader view of how these institutions may well be operating or trying to operate once their structure has been changed to try to find loopholes in the law.
Lastly, Amendment 118K would establish a process to review the Act and its operation and to encourage reporting to the House, particularly on this measure—I suspect there may well be a clumsy error in the drafting, for which I apologise in advance. The intent is to try to focus on this area so that the expertise and views of local authorities and others involved in education, especially Ofsted, can be collated by the department so that we can review whether or not these measures are being successfully enforced and we are achieving the outcomes that we so desperately want for the safeguarding of children.
Obviously, I will not push these amendments to a vote. They are there to try to encourage the Government to think again as the Bill goes through its passage in another place on how additional measures could be introduced to make sure that we make this the final time we have to legislate on these issues.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
The amendments in this group have attendance at their core, and nothing is more important. In addition to being directly related to physical health, the attendance of learners in school is affected by well-being and mental health, and by attitudes towards learning and schooling. My noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, made some important points regarding children with medical conditions. The interrelationship between attendance and general well-being is considered so strong that attendance has often been taken as a measure for well-being in previous data collection. We know that attendance has a strong impact on learner outcomes, standards and progression. I can tell you from first-hand experience that examination outcomes strongly correlate to attendance rates.
Amendments 118J and 118K, proposed by my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, seek to deal with the current gaps in legislation, addressing important issues surrounding attendance and its promotion by educational institutions, and would require a review of any avoidance of the legislation as it develops, which we support.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the fourth group of amendments relates to school attendance orders and independent educational institutions. I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for Amendments 87 and 89. However, we are concerned that these could work directly against the child’s best interests by increasing the time that a child could spend in potentially unsuitable education. We do not regard the issuing of a preliminary notice as an extreme penalty that warrants such justifications for issuance. We believe that a local authority should be able and required to take steps to determine the suitability of education being provided where there has been insufficient or inaccurate information given.
The local authority is already legally required to consider all relevant factors in determining whether it is expedient for a child to attend school, including whether it is in the child’s best interests. I hope that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who tabled Amendment 91. To reiterate, “expedient” in this context means that it must be
“advantageous; fit, proper, or suitable to the circumstances of the case”
for the child to attend school. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said, it will almost always be in the child’s best interests to attend school if they are not receiving suitable education, but there may be cases in which it could be argued that another solution would be better for the child—for example, if the child is physically or mentally too unwell to attend school.
On Amendment 96, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we have been clear through our recently published school attendance guidance that local authorities are expected to work closely with other services and partners, such as health services. Paragraph 79 of the guidance—I am worried that the noble Baroness is at home saying to her screen, “But who gets to paragraph 79?”, but I know that she will get to it—says that local authorities are expected to
“Build strong relationships with a range of services and partners that can help with specific barriers to attendance and how to access them.”
It then lists services that local authorities are expected to work with, which include health, children’s social care and youth justice services, to which the noble Baroness referred. I know she is concerned about what happens in cases where the guidance is not followed, and I am happy to write to her to set out our response to those situations in more detail.
As already mentioned, government Amendments 71 and 72 would prevent the school attendance order process being triggered where parents simply do not know the information required.
With regard to Amendment 88, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, I must reiterate the importance of local authorities remedying the situation for any child who is not receiving a suitable education, in the shortest time possible. The introduction and reduction of timeframes in the school attendance order process will help achieve this. However, I remind the House that, as my noble friend mentioned in earlier debates, even with the timeframes set out in the Bill, a child could still potentially be without suitable education for a period of at least 51 days, without extending this any further.
Lord Storey (LD)
That is the statutory guidance, but what is the Minister’s department doing in relation to those many local authorities which take no notice?
Baroness Barran (Con)
That was in relation to illegal settings, and we hope that is straightforward. Alternative provision education is delivered in other settings—as the noble Lord has rightly drawn attention to—which do not receive state funding, are not required to register as an independent school, and do not meet, currently, the requirements for registration. The noble Lord is aware, I think, that in the special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision Green Paper, we made a commitment to strengthening protections for children and young people in unregistered alternative provision settings, so that every placement is safe, offers good-quality education and has clear oversight. If I understand correctly, that is exactly what the noble Lord also aspires to.
I am pleased to report that on 11 July the department issued a call for evidence on the use of unregistered alternative provision settings. Again, I place on record my thanks to the noble Lord for his insistence and persistence on this very important issue, which is important, as he pointed out, for children whose parents may not have the confidence to challenge the system. The information collected will help us find the right solution that addresses these concerns effectively and proportionately.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for his Amendments 97A, 118J and 118K, and for the very constructive way that we have been able to work together. I hope we can continue to work together to address the points that he has raised. We have worked with Ofsted to develop the package of measures to investigate illegal schools, to ensure that we can take effective action against unlawful behaviour. Since Ofsted started investigating unregistered schools in 2016, we have gained a much better understanding of how to tackle this sector. There have been six successful prosecutions. The number of cases investigated reflects an increase in efforts to investigate. The actual number of unregistered schools, as the noble Lord knows, is unknown, sadly, but the measures in this Bill have been developed—working together with Ofsted—to address the key issues in the sector, which the noble Lord has rightly drawn attention to.
We believe that Amendment 97A is not necessary as we can already prosecute companies and charities which are operating schools unlawfully. We already inform the Charity Commission when charities are prosecuted. Education and childcare behaviour orders will allow courts to prevent individuals from continuing to operate from buildings that have been used for illegal schools. When we were developing the measures, we also looked at whether it would be appropriate to create measures which would allow action against landlords, in the way that the noble Lord’s amendment has set out. This is a very complex area, and we concluded that education and childcare behaviour orders, which could prevent those convicted of an offence from continuing to operate from a given site, were the more appropriate mechanism.
Amendment 118J replicates powers that Ofsted already has. Genuine part-time settings are not under a statutory obligation to register, so would not be caught by the proposed amendment. There is ongoing engagement between the department, Ofsted and other stakeholders on the effectiveness of measures to tackle unregistered schools. The effectiveness of the legislation will be kept under review. The need for accountability suggested by Amendment 118K is, we believe, best secured through the annual report that Ofsted presents to Parliament.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 110, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. We believe that this amendment is unnecessary as existing provisions—specifically in Section 136 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 and in Clause 65 of the Bill—already ensure that new local authority education functions under the Bill will be within scope of Ofsted’s inspection powers. I therefore ask my noble friend Lord Lucas to withdraw Amendment 87 and hope that other noble Lords will not move theirs.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that extensive explanation and her many good answers. I am delighted, too, that she is being so supportive of the campaign of the noble Lord, Lord Storey.
With regard to her last answer in relation to Amendment 110, I look forward to sharing with her the correspondence I have had with the chief inspector, who takes a different view, but this can be remedied later in the passage of the Bill if the chief inspector is right. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barran
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 1.
Baroness Barran
Member's explanatory statement
This is a technical drafting amendment to match the terminology used in clause 60 with that used elsewhere in the Bill and in the Education and Skills Act 2008.
(a) provision made by an Act passed before, or later in the same session of Parliament as, the Schools Act 2022,(b) provision made by Part 3 of the Schools Act 2022 (school attendance), and (c) provision made by subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978) before the end of the session of Parliament in which the Schools Act 2022 is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a drafting error: subsection (2) should have referred to “the Schools Act” rather than “this Act”. The amendment would also allow the application to independent educational institutions of provisions made by or under Part 3 of the Bill itself, as those are closely linked to other provisions that may be applied under the power.
“British values(1) In any statement relating to British values for education purposes at primary and secondary level in England and Wales, the Secretary of State, OFSTED and any other public authority must include—(a) democracy,(b) the rule of law,(c) freedom,(d) equal respect for every person, and(e) respect for the environment.(2) Any statement under subsection (1) must refer to British values as “values of British citizenship”.(3) The values listed under subsection (1)(a) to (e) must be taught as part of citizenship, at the first to fourth key stages. (4) In subsection (1)(a) “democracy” includes—(a) an independent judiciary,(b) in a Parliamentary system, a Government that is accountable to Parliament,(c) regular elections, and(d) decentralised decision-making, accountable at an appropriate level to the electorate.(5) In subsection (1)(c) “freedom” includes—(a) freedom of thought, conscience and religion,(b) freedom of expression, and(c) freedom of assembly and association.(6) In subsection (1)(e) “respect for the environment” means taking into account the systemic effect of human actions on the health and sustainability of the environment both within the United Kingdom and over the planet as a whole, for present and future generations.”
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I beg to move Amendment 101 on British standards, which stands in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Norton of Louth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
The Ofsted chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, has said:
“When it comes to British values, we often see an oddly piecemeal approach, which too seldom builds the teaching into a strong context … we see a lot of wall displays and motivational assemblies, but not much coherent thinking about how a real depth of understanding can be built through the academic curriculum”.
British values have to be taught in schools, but there is a fundamental problem at the moment about them being taught.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I support the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and declare my interest as the honorary president of the Association for Citizenship Teaching—and I put on record that I will adhere to normal sartorial values on Wednesday.
I will speak very briefly, because there is still a long way to go this evening, in support of the amendment. It follows on from the Ties that Bind recommendations of the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, back in 2018; the Justice and Home Affairs Committee’s investigation into the “life in the UK test”, published just a few weeks ago; and the ongoing desire to align the Department for Education—sadly now without the guidance of Robin Walker, who was deeply committed to citizenship and who was actually shifting the templates a little—and Ofsted, which is not aligned at all with what the DfE says or what we thought Ofsted had understood four years ago. It is a very strange juxtaposition.
I just want to put on record that we need to understand and be clear about the difference between personal development and citizenship education, which incorporates an understanding of the broad values of being a citizen in the United Kingdom, as well as the practical measures that make it possible for our democracy to function properly.
At this moment in time, given the clear need for respect from one politician to another, whether it is on ITV or Channel 4, we need to reinforce with our young people one simple message. We may, as your forbears, have got into a terrible mess and our democracy may well be extremely fragile—as I was saying last week, quoting the noble Lord, Lord Hennessey—but the future is in your hands, as the next generation, and beyond. Unless we guide and provide a framework and a landscape by which those young people understand what is happening in our democratic process, we will have let them down, because they will think that what they see on their televisions and what they read in their newspapers at the moment constitute the values that we espouse. They do not.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I offer very strong support for Amendment 101, so eloquently moved by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and spoken to by my noble friend Lord Blunkett. It offers a coherent system we can unite around. Other countries have their written constitutions; we do not. The Americans also have the Gettysburg Address—easy to teach, easy to understand. In this amendment, we have a coherent system of basic principles of democracy, human rights and equality and the modern imperative of care for the environment. This whole subject, taught as a unity, is particularly important for non-faith schools also, which have a less coherent framework than the faith schools. We are a diverse society. We have several faiths and beliefs and we need a framework that we can cohere around, such as the values of British citizenship in this amendment. The Minister would be doing the children of this country a great service if she were to accept it.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly add to the chorus of approval for this amendment moved by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. He talked about the problems attached to British values and how they have appeared to exclude some people. What he is trying to achieve is truly inclusive.
I add my voice in particular on sustainability. All of us in this and the other House have been circulated Sir Patrick Vallance’s briefing to MPs on the challenge of climate change. Looking at that, and at the scale and urgency of the challenge from those presenting, it was clear to me that what is missing is public behaviour change. I am absolutely convinced that the key to unlocking that lies in our schools and with our young people, as the demographic which is most enthusiastic about this and can reach into everyone’s home and start to shift our behaviours.
The education company Pearson recently published its School Report, which showed that 50% of school leaders want to teach this—a glass-half-full/glass-half-empty figure. We have had a strategy from the Government which said they wanted schools to do this. Only half of school leaders are planning to do so. We need to do more, including this.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 105, the purpose of which is to ensure that parents can discover what their children are being taught in school. They must have access, we say, to the materials deployed in class.
It arises because some commercial providers of materials in the sensitive field of RSE and health have tried to stop parents getting access to materials which they have provided for use in class. Requests to see material have been met with the assertion that it is protected and exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act by reason of commercial confidentiality. In other cases, copyright has been raised. In some instances, schools have simply refused point blank. That is what the amendment is aimed at.
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, who put his name to this amendment, regrets that he cannot speak because he is elsewhere on a prior engagement. On our side, we are grateful for the two meetings we have had with my noble friend the Minister and officials. They have been constructive; we have made progress and received an encouraging letter on Friday.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment just spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, to which my name has been added. I thank the Minister for the meetings we have had; I think we have made real progress. She completely understands the issue and is doing what she can within the constraints she has to try to move this forward, and progress has been made, but there are still things to do. That is why it is worth this debate and worth hearing further words from her from the Dispatch Box.
I was first drawn to this issue because I thought it was merely an issue of copyright. The example that had been brought to my attention was materials not shown to a parent because of copyright; the education curriculum was being delivered by a third party which had copyrighted the materials. I thought it was as simple as that. The Minister has now made sure that, legally, you can do that, and all heads will be told—and a lot of work will have to be done to make sure that all heads realise that and act on it. But the more I look at the issue, the more difficult it appears.
Where we have curriculum content over which there is very little disagreement, the issue almost never arises because parents do not particularly want to see curriculum content all the time. It is in these tricky areas, particularly in PSHE, where there is no national curriculum content, that the real problems arise. There is no doubt that some of the issues which have since been brought to my attention and I have had the opportunity to look at have arisen from real differences of opinion and breakdown of relationships between the head teacher and the parent.
That is the problem at the core of this. If it gets to the point where there is an argument between the parent and the head teacher, and the head teacher is saying that the parents cannot look at the materials, that relationship stands little chance of being mended. That is the real risk. It happens only where content is contested, which makes the problem even worse. That is why it is important to sort this out.
I hope the Minister will agree that the contention has to be taken out of some of the curriculum content. The issue that I was interested in, as was the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, is the teaching of sex, which I believe is biologically based. Some of the materials that I saw that were being withheld from parents were hugely contentious, and many parents—quite reasonably, to my mind—would not have wanted them to be taught to their children. It is a complicated issue, and there are three main issues. First, parents should have the right to see the materials; secondly, copyright is irrelevant as a barrier to them doing so; and, thirdly, we are looking to the Government to offer some very clear guidance on subject content as far as these contentious issues are concerned.
I completely understand that we do not want to get to a position where parents demand to have the right to see every note that a teacher is going to use in a lesson. When I was a teacher, I would have been horrified if I had had to show my lesson notes to the parents. That is not where we want to be. We are talking about a broad understanding of the curriculum content so that parents and teachers can be the joint educators of children, especially in these important areas. I reassure the Minister that I completely understand the need to draw professional boundaries, but at the moment parents are being pushed into challenging those professional boundaries because they cannot have access to the materials at the first ask. I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said so far in the letters to us, and I hope she can go further.
I support the amendment by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. The argument has been forcefully made today, and I think it is unanswerable. We are all in favour of the values of British citizenship being taught. We know it is not being done well, and I genuinely think that the way forward that he points to would offer a better chance of getting everyone on the same side for a common goal.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have also put my name to Amendment 105. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, on their work on this issue, which has been very important, and the Minister on listening and moving forward.
I start off with a bit of a caveat, because a lot of good things have been said: as an ex-teacher, I too am only too aware of the dread of pushy parents intervening in the minutiae of school, turning up and demanding to see this, that or the other. More seriously, we know what happened when a group of activist parents gathered outside Batley Grammar School and demanded to dictate what the curriculum was. That is not what this is about at all.
The context for the Government, which is very important, is that at the moment, because parents cannot see this material, it has been left in an informal morass of people hearing stories and getting particularly worried. Parents have had to resort to freedom of information requests to see third-party materials, and that really is not helpful. There is a rather excellent exposé by Milli Hill entitled “Worrying truth of what children are REALLY learning in Sex Education”. We are leaving it up to journalists to do these exposés. That just worries parents, so we have to grab this back.
Most parents think that, when their children are being taught about pronouns, that is helping with their English grammar, but then, when they read in the newspaper that it has something to do with policing language and gender ideology, they understandably worry. They worry when they hear about the affirmation of radical medical interventions, such as the amputation of sexual organs. These things are really scary. I urge the Government to grab hold of these horror stories and deal with them. I would like to see them acting on this very important issue.
There are matters that go beyond the scope of Amendment 105. The issue of parental access and teaching materials talks to a problem of parents feeling that the curriculum on contentious issues is being politicised. There is an excellent new report from Don’t Divide Us called Who’s in Charge? A Report on Councils’ Anti-racist Policies for Schools, which I will pass on to the Minister and I hope she will even meet the authors. The reason why I refer to it is that I do not want people to think this is just about the gender ideology issue. It is a sort of broader feeling that many parents have that there are third-party providers creating a political atmosphere in school, and that even schools themselves are doing the same. That raises problems of parents’ trust in what is being taught to their children.
I therefore query Amendment 101, on British values, despite the brilliant speeches we have heard in support of it. I was initially attracted to this amendment. After all, it mentions
“freedom of thought, conscience and religion … freedom of expression, and … freedom of assembly and association.”
These are my passions; I go on about them all the time. I thought, “Great—can we get them into schools?”. But when I talk about freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, these days I am often written off as some sort of alt-right lunatic who—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
There we go. I am written off as someone who wants free speech only in order to come out with hate speech. I say this because even something such as free speech is contentious. I do not think that trying to use an amendment such as this, including the word “citizenship” to get around the fact that there are contentious arguments about values, will resolve the problem. I wonder whether I can be consoled by those who tabled this amendment that it is not about avoiding a political argument via using the law. It could end up politicising the curriculum.
For example, I disagree with the proposed new paragraph on “respect for the environment”. We have to take into account that Section 406 of the Education Act and schools’ legal obligation to remain impartial can be compromised by things that people in this House are passionate about politically but that maybe should not be in schools.
That finally gets me to my concerns about Amendments 118B and 118H, which call for
“a review into teaching about diversity in school curriculums”.
I am concerned about their emphasis on British history including
“Black British history … colonialism, and … Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade”—
not because I do not think those things should be taught, but we have to ask whether this is being promoted for historical or political reasons. The recent controversy over the OCR syllabus on English literature being changed, when we had the works of Keats, Thomas Hardy, Wilfred Owen and Larkin removed, was justified not on literary merits but on the basis of an emphasis on ethnicity, diversity and identity. That kind of politicising of the curriculum does not do any service for the pupils we are teaching and is making parents rather suspicious about what is going on in schools.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 118A in my name. Before I make any substantive remarks, I say on the record that, on perhaps the hottest day ever recorded in this country, this Chamber is cooler than the Central line; I was on it this morning. I never thought I could put the House of Lords and being cool in the same sentence. I want to thank a few people who have helped me put these remarks together: L’Myah Sherae, Alfiaz Vaiya and Simon Dixon in Stella Creasy’s office.
Only through a freedom of information request by the Guardian newspaper do we know that UK schools recorded more than 60,000 racist incidents in the last five years. Many people, including black community and education leaders, accuse the Government of failing to meet basic safeguarding measures by hiding the true scale of the problem. For example, the data from the Guardian excluded 80% of England’s multi-academy trusts. The scale of racial incidents in schools is therefore probably much worse, causing one academic working in this area, Professor David Gillborn from the University of Birmingham, to conclude that we have a racism epidemic in our schools.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord in what I thought was a very moving and profound contribution. My Amendment 118M takes us back to the role of regional schools commissioners, which we touched on in Committee. Commissioners have enormous power but they are civil servants and act on behalf of the Secretary of State, who remains accountable for their decisions. Each regional schools commissioner is supported by an advisory board, and they have a wide range of responsibilities including intervening in academies that Ofsted has judged inadequate, intervening in academies where government is inadequate, and deciding on applications from local authority maintained schools to convert to academy status.
In the schools White Paper earlier in the year, the Government stated that they would be changing the name of the regional schools commissioners to regional directors. A new regions group has been established within the noble Baroness’s department, which is bringing together functions currently distributed across the department and the Education and Skills Funding Agency. In Committee my noble friend Lord Knight raised a question about regional directors, as part of his thinking on what an all-academy schools system might look like in practice, particularly relating to the accountability of multi-academy trusts. He referred to the fact that many think academies insufficiently accountable. He felt that the advisory boards that regional schools commissioners have might be one way of strengthening accountability, particularly if they had a majority of local authority people on those advisory boards. The Minister was not very encouraging, I have to say, at that point.
I want to come back to this, because it seems to me that the review the Minister is now undertaking must take account of the relationship between academies, multi-academy trusts and regional directors. The direction of travel is that, by 2030, all schools will be academies. In essence, the Secretary of State is taking direct responsibility for each school in the English school system. In reality, the regional directors will take on that responsibility on behalf of the Secretary of State. Those regional directors are nominally civil servants, although they are not really civil servants in the way we think of them because they are external appointments. The sort of people who are appointed are not career civil servants; they are people who have come mainly from outside the system, as far as I understand it, so to call them civil servants is misleading in many ways, because it suggests they are functionaries directly accountable to the Secretary of State. The reality is that they take on huge powers. My argument is that they need to be more accountable to the system. I think the Minister should spell out in more detail the role of these regional directors. Recent research on Twitter—this is where we get information about them—shows that five of them have announced themselves on Twitter setting out their responsibilities. Each of them says that they are now responsible for children’s social care. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm if that is so or not. Does it mean, for instance, that these regional directors will be taking a lead on the regional adoption agencies? If there is an inadequate judgment under the Ofsted inspection of local authority children’s services framework, what is their role there? Do they have intervention powers?
What are the transitional arrangements between the regional schools commissioners and the regional directors? Will the regional directors be responsible for maintained schools that are not going through the academisation process as yet? I agree with my noble friend Lord Knight: there should be much greater transparency about what regional directors do, with the role of the advisory boards beefed up. There is actually a strong case for them becoming statutory agencies in the end, given that so much power is going to be given to them.
My substantive question to the Minister is: given the review she is now undertaking, will she assure me that the relationship of the regional directors and their accountability will be part of that review? She may argue that this has all been settled in the White Paper following Sir David Bell’s review but, given the scale of the change in many schools, which are going to be forced to become academies, I do not think that is the answer. We need to see much more accountability about how the system is going to operate. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond on that.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, before speaking to the amendments, I want to quickly say how much I agree with Amendment 101 on British values from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and Amendment 105 from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I do not see it as an issue of culture wars or whatever—parents should see the material that their children are being taught. I am quite surprised that we cannot do that. When we had parents’ evenings, the textbooks and the material that we were using were freely available for parents to look at. It was quite an important aspect of those meetings, as well as children’s work being on display. I hope the Minister can answer this issue about copyright because that seems to be a red herring.
On Amendment 118H, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is absolutely right: there should be a review of diversity in the curriculum. When you ask about black studies or black history in school, you get a list and you might find a black author or an Asian poet on it, but there is no guarantee that that is actually taught in schools; invariably, it is not. I want that audit on diversity to be carried out so that we know exactly how our curriculum should be developed.
I will come to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, at the end, if I may.
I have a slight reservation with the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. We do not have a national curriculum: it is not taught in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, so it is not national. It is not taught in academies or free schools. It is taught only in maintained schools, so it is not a national curriculum.
I like the fact that academies and free schools have the freedom to devise their curriculum and I wish that freedom were given to maintained schools as well so that schools can devise their curriculum to suit their particular circumstances or issues. I gave an example to the Minister only today: Liverpool was the centre of the slave trade and I know that in academies in Liverpool they will do a unit on the slave trade, but it is not part of the maintained school curriculum. Maintained schools should be free to develop their curriculum.
The noble Baroness’s amendment lists the things that should definitely be part of this mandatory curriculum. They are probably the right ones. Financial management should be taught. Certainly, some personal, social and health education issues should be taught. I have a Private Member’s Bill on water safety, because I believe passionately that that should be taught in schools. Yes, there are things that should be taught, but let us not be prescriptive now. What we need is a review of our curriculum. It has not been reviewed for 10 years and we need to do that—for all the reasons we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. So this is an important amendment but it is perhaps too prescriptive.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly on Amendment 118B.
For generations, there have been interventions that have looked at education, but what needs to change is to make schooling applicable to everyone. What is always missing is where the black child fits in. We have only to look at the scandal around the Windrush generation and the lessons that have not been learned, and the injustices that occurred back in 1948 and still do in the present day.
Back in the 1960s, Bernard Coard wrote a book called How the West Indian Child is Made Educationally Sub-normal in the British School System. The British school system has failed children in schools following the immigration of their parents into this country, and the racism they suffered in education in some cases continues to this day.
In my opinion, the majority of children in pupil referral units are from the black community. Children are sent there for many reasons, and racism is high on the agenda. Once children are placed there, you could say that is the end of their education, life chances and prospects. We can see this in the Prison Service and with employment opportunities.
The Schools Bill needs to look at education for all. Education is supposed to equip you for the future, and for you to understand who you are and that your background matters.
Racism was laid bare during the pandemic. We saw that the first casualties to have died of Covid-19 were from the black and Asian community. This was highlighted as part of my review.
Unless the Government look seriously at the impact of racism in our schools on education and wider society, we will back discussing the same agenda in years to come.
To touch on black history, it does not address the curriculum in education. I believe that decolonisation is the way forward. The Stephen Lawrence foundation will be working on this moving forward.
Wales is looking at education and the changes that are needed to the system. This is a start. What are the Government looking to do in the other devolved nations? Following on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, I wish that we would take the racism that happens in schools a lot more seriously.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that regional schools directors are civil servants. I am sure my noble friend the Minister will confirm that there are no proposed changes to that. During my tenure they were all directly answerable to me on behalf of our Secretary of State. I tried very hard to ensure that we had a mixture of skills in that group.
When I was the academies Minister, the national schools commissioner had been a teacher, then a headteacher, then the chief executive of an academy trust, so he had a very good understanding of the whole culture. We had another very good regional schools commissioner who had been the head of local authority social services and so on, but we also had permanent civil servants. My mission was to bring them all together. They all reported to me, and we met as a group regularly so that there could be a transfer of ideas between them. I do not think there are any plans for that to change.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I am speaking to the two amendments we have in this group: Amendments 118G and 118H. I thank my noble friend Lady Lawrence for making some extremely salient points which I will refer to subsequently.
To the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I would like to explain that Amendment 118G will require every academy to follow the national curriculum. We have the list of things we would like to talk about because of the inherent contradictions we have found in this Bill. We have been trying to work around them and are attempting to fill the gaps as best we can. As the Government were clearly intent on a sweeping approach, we felt it was imperative that those issues be included in the national curriculum.
Amendment 118H would compel the Secretary of State to
“work with the devolved administrations”,
as noted by my noble friend Lady Lawrence, to launch and publish a review into teaching about diversity in the curriculum and
“to ensure that teaching of British history includes but is not limited to … Black British history … colonialism, and … Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade.”
The English education system could learn a great deal from Wales in this matter. Our new curriculum will be launched this September. The new mandatory elements of the curriculum, in particular the teaching of the experiences and contributions of people from minority backgrounds, will broaden the education of every child in Wales so it better reflects the experiences of the whole population of Wales. Educating young people about the experiences and contributions of minority ethnic peoples in Wales, past and present, will promote lasting change aimed at tackling broader inequalities within society. I urge the Minister to support this aspect of our range of amendment suggestions.
In conclusion, we also support Amendment 101 proposed by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and other noble Lords. The values of British citizenship should include important elements, not least democracy and the rule of law—an important lesson learned by some Members of the other place in recent weeks.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for explaining her amendment to us. I am liberal rather than post-modern; I believe in the objective being one united society where we are all equal, rather than in the fractured values which her amendment proposes. It is really important that what we teach in schools covers all our experiences and all the threads that make up the UK. The English ought to learn a great deal more about the Welsh and Scots, for a start.
One of the fundamental problems, illustrated in the dispute with OCR over its poetry curriculum, is that we have allowed our examination system to become far too narrow. Yes, a thread of the undisputed greats in literature ought to run through things, as well as the thread of our history that used to consist of learning the names and dates of kings but is actually rather more interesting. Within them are the stories of us all—and that really ought to be us all.
To manage that within a school curriculum, you need a lot more freedom than we allow people at the moment, not less. We should not have a national curriculum that says, “These are the five things that you must teach”, but one with the ability to stretch broadly, bring things in and illustrate them and, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, enrich people’s local experience with things that mean something to them. I support the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, in his endeavours.
My noble friend Lord Sandhurst will know that I am very much with him on his amendments, and I am delighted to find myself with the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, in what he is asking for. The noble Lord says that he is surprised to discover that the Lords is cool. For those of us who come from the west, we walk in every day past a notice that says, “Peers entrance”. Indeed they do. The problems he outlines remind me a lot of what goes on with sexual abuse in schools. The answer is to face it, look at it and really be interested in, not afraid of, what is going on. We should be confident that we do not want it to be that way. We should not expect quick solutions so that we can forget about it, but know that this will take us a good long while to sort out and that it has some deep roots. I would really like to see the Government take some steps in the sort of direction the noble Lord proposes.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for Amendment 101. As he knows, we support the principles at the heart of this amendment and agree that teaching staff and leadership in schools need to understand the important role that fundamental British values play in our society and beyond.
I think he is making two points: one about curriculum content and one about the quality of the delivery of that curriculum. The Government believe our current arrangements provide a sound basis for this. As your Lordships know, schools have a duty, as part of providing a broad and balanced curriculum, to promote pupils’ spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development. Those principles are embedded in the Independent School Standards, teacher standards and Ofsted inspections.
As to the comments on the environment, our ambitious sustainability and climate change strategy publicly addresses the importance of teaching about the environment. This includes teaching topics related to climate change, covered within the citizenship, science and geography national curriculum.
We have prioritised helping schools to remain focused on recovery from the pandemic. This is why we undertook in the schools White Paper not to make any curriculum changes during this Parliament. The noble and right reverend Lord referred to the comments of the Chief Inspector of Schools about what she and her colleagues had seen in schools on the teaching of these subjects. We expect schools to take those comments very seriously and respond to them.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank all those who spoke in support of my amendment, and I listened with great interest to those who spoke so powerfully on a whole range of amendments. I thank the Minister for what she said, and for the offer to meet her to talk about guidance, but the problems are more deep-seated than just changing the guidance. One point that I want to correct is that I do not believe that my amendment involves a change of the curriculum; after all, fundamental British values have to be taught at the moment. This is not changing the curriculum; it is just exactly listing the values, to gain greater support from teachers and pupils.
I do not intend to divide the House tonight, although I know that there is very strong support all around it from all parties and I have not lost confidence in this amendment. A new Government are coming in in September, we have the Third Reading in September, the Bill still has to go to the Commons after us, and I believe that the reasons in favour of this small but significant change are so compelling that it eventually will be picked up by one Government sooner or later. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:10 - Division on Lord Collins of Highbury’s amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 80 / Noes: 96 - Lord Collins of Highbury’s amendment to the Motion disagreed.
Lord Callanan
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 27 June be approved.
Relevant documents: 7th and 9th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to the Liability of Trade Unions in Proceedings in Tort (Increase of Limits on Damages) Order 2022, which was laid before the House on 24 June 2022. The purpose of the regulations is to lift the current ban on employers bringing in agency staff to help them cope with industrial action. The other instrument makes long-overdue changes to the maximum levels of damages the courts can award against trade unions that take unlawful industrial action.
I will start by explaining why the Government are making these changes. Our trade union laws are designed to support an effective and collaborative approach to resolving industrial disputes. They rightly seek to balance the interests of trade unions and their members with the interests of employers and the wider public. While the Government continue to support the right to strike, this should always be a last resort. The rights of some workers to strike must also be balanced against the rights of the wider public to get on with their daily lives. Strikes can, and do, cause significant disruption. This is particularly the case when they take place in important public services such as transport or education.
It cannot be right that trade unions can, as we saw in the case of the recent rail strikes, seek to hold the country to ransom if their demands are not met. Some trade unions appear to us to be looking to create maximum disruption in a bid to stay relevant, rather than constructively seeking agreement with employers and avoiding conflict. In light of this, the Government have reviewed the current industrial relations framework and have come to the conclusion that change is needed.
The first change we are making is to remove the outdated blanket ban on employment businesses supplying agency workers to clients where they would be used to cover official industrial action. Of course, employers can at the moment already hire short-term staff directly to cover industrial action, but this change will give them the ability to work with specialist employment businesses to identify and bring in staff. This change does not in any way restrict the ability of workers to go on strike. However, it will give employers another tool they can use when trying to maintain the level of service they offer to the public.
This is a permissive change. It will not force employment businesses to supply agency staff to employers to cover strikes, agency workers will still be able to decline any assignments they are offered, and the right to strike is unaffected. This change is simply about giving both employers and employees more freedom and flexibility to decide what works best for them—a freedom that the current outdated regulations deny them.
I have seen some, frankly, rather overblown reports that this will somehow put workers or the wider public at risk. This is absolutely not the case. Employers will still have to comply with broader health and safety rules, and employment businesses will still need to be satisfied that the workers they supply are suitably qualified and trained.
Alongside this change, we are increasing the levels of damages that a court can award in the case of unlawful strike action. It has long been the case that employers can bring a claim for damages against a trade union that has organised unlawful strike action. The upper limits to the damages that can be awarded are set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and are based on the size of the union that organised the unlawful action, but this damages regime has not been reviewed since 1982, so these limits are significantly out of date. As a result, the deterrent effect that Parliament intended has now been significantly reduced.
The Secretary of State is using powers granted to him in Section 22 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to increase the existing caps in line with inflation. In practical terms, this means that the maximum award of damages that could be made against the smallest unions will increase from £10,000 to £40,000, and for the largest unions it will increase from £250,000 to £1 million. This is a proportionate change because we are simply increasing these amounts to the levels that they would have been at had they been regularly updated since 1982. We are increasing the limits in line with the retail prices index, which is of course a well-understood measure of inflation.
By increasing the limits on damages in line with inflation, we are sending a clear message to trade unions that they must comply with the law when taking industrial action. Strikes should be called only as a last resort and as the result of a clear, positive and democratic decision of union members. The key point is that unions that continue to comply with trade union law will be completely unaffected by this change.
I am grateful to the members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for the time and care that they have taken in reviewing these regulations. I note their comments about the impact assessment for the changes to Regulation 7. This has now been published in line with our commitments to Parliament. As the committee noted, because this is a permissive change there is some legitimate uncertainty about the extent to which employment businesses will want to take advantage of their newly found freedoms. However, as the impact assessment shows, this change needs to lead to only a small reduction in the number of working days lost for it to make an extremely positive difference to the economy and society.
I have also noted the committee’s concerns in relation to Wales, specifically our commitment to repeal the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017. In response, I simply say that there is nothing new about this commitment. The Government’s position on this issue has been consistent since the relevant Act was passed in 2017. Although we will of course engage further with the Welsh Government on this issue, it is very clear that labour markets and industrial relations are reserved matters.
The changes we are making will ensure that our trade union and agency laws remain fit for purpose. We are giving businesses the freedom to manage their workforce and we are empowering workers by giving them more choices about the kinds of assignments they can accept. We will continue to protect an individual’s right to strike, where proper procedures are followed, while ensuring that trade unions are deterred from taking unlawful industrial action. I therefore beg to move that both instruments are considered by this House.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Collins of Highbury
At the end insert “but that this House regrets that the Regulations have been introduced without required or sufficient consultation, are opposed by employer and employee organisations, will do little to address the trained workforce shortfalls, could put workers’ safety at risk, will harm industrial relations, and may breach international law; further regrets that the associated Liability of Trade Unions in Proceedings in Tort (Increase of Limits on Damages) Order 2022 is unnecessary, as there are few if any occasions on which damages have been claimed, and an increase on the cap by 400 per cent is a threat that may inhibit the legitimate exercise of the right to strike; and concludes that the two instruments are simply a political exercise to deflect from the failure of Her Majesty’s Government to engage meaningfully with the organisations affected to resolve the disputes”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this debate, but what I heard was a lot of gesture politics and nothing about how we improve industrial relations in this country. In moving this amendment, I will focus on the failure to consult, the lack of an impact assessment when the statutory instrument was laid, and whether the instrument will meet the Government’s policy objectives.
The Employment Agencies Act 1973 requires consultation before changes are made. Rather than consult on the new regulations, the Government are relying on a consultation conducted in 2015, when Ministers previously considered similar changes. I do not see how it can be justified for a seven-year old consultation to apply to legislation being laid in 2022. Things have changed considerably in those seven years, both industrially and politically. Even the department itself acknowledged that
“circumstances have altered in some ways”.
However, it did not think that these were
“particularly relevant to the changes”
proposed. Tell that to the employees of P&O Ferries, where agency workers were used to undermine a collective agreement and replace unionised jobs. P&O’s actions were met with condemnation from all political parties—including the Minister’s—unions and employer organisations alike.
Turning to the 2015 consultation, let us not forget that 70% of the respondents were of the view that the changes would impact negatively on employees, yet the Government still believe that they have got the balance right between the interests of individuals—by protecting their right to engage in industrial action—and the interests of the general public.
Despite what the noble Lord says, I think it has the completely opposite effect. They are not defending individuals’ rights. Rather than focus on supporting negotiations to resolve disputes, we have a Government determined to undermine workers and damage good industrial relations. The use of agency workers during a strike would increase tensions between workers and their employers. This is bound to make disputes more difficult to resolve amicably.
Let us not forget: strikes are a last resort, as the noble Lord says, and most negotiations resolve in an agreement. Even where a strike takes place, the resolution requires agreement and this Government are doing nothing to support negotiations and reach settlements and agreements. It will make it far harder for working people to organise collectively to defend their jobs, their livelihoods and the quality of their working lives. This would be a shameful outcome for a Government which only a few years ago promised to protect and enhance workers’ rights.
The Explanatory Memorandum to the draft regulations stated:
“The Impact Assessment will be published in good time before any parliamentary debates”.
That did not happen. The explanation for the delay, given to the SLSC by the department, was that an impact assessment had been produced but needed “final quality assurance checks”. As the SLSC reminded us, every time an instrument is laid without the supporting impact assessment, it undermines the ability of Parliament to scrutinise legislation effectively.
Last week, the Government belatedly published an impact assessment. This featured, as the noble Lord said, vastly reduced costs and benefits from 2015, suggesting that any net benefit for businesses is expected to be below £5 million per year. The impact assessment published in 2015 was declared not fit for purpose by the Regulatory Policy Committee because it did not provide sufficient evidence of the likely impact of the proposals.
Of course, the SLSC rightly drew attention to the Secretary of State’s statement that it is not possible to robustly estimate the impact of the policy due to the lack of evidence. That is where we are: no evidence. This is purely a political gimmick without any consultation with those most affected, including employment agencies and workers. How can we believe the assumptions in this latest assessment?
The lack of robust evidence and the expected limited net benefit must raise questions as to the practical effectiveness and the benefit of the proposed repeal of Regulation 7. I repeat that this change is opposed by employment agency businesses, trade unions and employee organisations alike.
In his letter to noble Lords, the Minister stated that:
“We believe the changes we are making will help mitigate the impact of future strikes, such as those seen on our railways this week, by allowing—
—and these are his words—
“trained, temporary workers to carry out crucial roles to keep trains moving.”
What is clear is that there is not a large pool of sufficiently trained and qualified agency workers able to replace most roles on the railway and in most other sectors. They are simply not there, so what is the purpose of this change?
Neil Carberry, chief executive of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, says:
“The government’s proposal will not work. Agency staff have a choice of roles and are highly unlikely to choose to cross picket lines.”
In addition to the damage to constructive employment relations, agency workers could also face a terrible choice between crossing a picket line or turning down an assignment and risk not being offered future employment.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, there is not a lot of competition on these Benches to speak, so I hope I shall be forgiven. We normally begin by making a declaration of interest. Mine is quite simple: I left school at 16 and I joined a trade union straight away. I have been in a TUC trade union ever since, and I am currently the president of BALPA, the pilots’ union. I have been the president of the British Dietetic Association. From being a branch official at the age of 16, I have in some way or other been an active trade unionist for longer than I have been an active politician.
I say that because I just cannot see the purpose of the regulations. They deal with an Act passed by a Conservative Government, the Employment Agencies Act 1973. They do not appear to have had the requisite consultation. I would not be surprised if, at judicial review, they did not manage to stand up. There could be a judicial review that the Government had not fulfilled what the regulations were meant to do. I have had briefings from UNISON, the TUC and the British Medical Association. When you get those three in one pot, you really have trouble, I will tell you—with the BMA, particularly.
My first question for the Minister is this. What has changed since 2015, other than that we have a different Prime Minister and that Prime Minister’s trade union envoy no longer seems to have much resonance around the Conservative Party? In 2015, this was dropped; it was not proceeded with. We have the impact assessment and the report of the scrutiny committee. I should like to read just a little into the record. The fact that the impact assessment of the department was
“unable to ‘robustly estimate the size’ of the policy’s impact because of a lack of evidence raises questions as to the effectiveness of the change proposed by the draft Regulations … The lack of robust evidence and the expected limited net benefit raise questions as to the practical effectiveness and benefit of the proposed”
repeal of Regulation 7. That is fairly clear; there is not much room for disagreement there.
I also ask a question about the Liability of Trade Unions in Proceedings in Tort (Increase of Limits in Damages) Order. When was the last case? It is fine to update it, but when I asked someone, they could not find anything in the past 10 years in the way of a case. My experience of attending TU governing bodies is that they spend a hell of a long time looking at complying with the law. If you were to be privileged to sit in on a BALPA meeting, you would find that before even the mildest industrial action is undertaken there is absolutely rigorous scrutiny of whether it fully complies with the law—there is no attempt to get round it. What are HMG trying to achieve, other than to annoy people? I do not think this legislation is draconian; I think it is pretty useless.
Where will you find signalmen to be recruited by, I do not know, Reed, to send them down to Cambridge station to work the signals? I do not think they are there. You will find plenty of doctors. Indeed, one of Addenbrooke’s biggest problems is that the doctors prefer to work through an agency because they get more money. Will you have the doctors all working for the agency? Of course not. The fact is that there is no great skill pool on the railways. If you go to my local station in Cambridge, you will see that there are signs in all the shop windows for baristas and people to work in the shops. There is no unemployment there to be mopped up by such people, even if they wanted to do it.
The average working person gets no pleasure out of crossing picket lines; it is not a natural thing to do. So I ask the Minister: does he really need this? What does he achieve? One-third of trade unionists vote for the Conservative Party. Why go around sticking unnecessary pins into them? We do not have a crisis. We do not have a major problem. We have a minor problem, and even that minor problem needs addressing in negotiation between the railway unions and the people who run the railways. There is a lot that could be improved there, but it is not going to be improved—sorry, Minister—by little bits of legislation such as this. This, I am afraid, is nearer to a dead letter than a live proposition.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, the critique by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, was absolutely stunning. Last month, the Minister told this House that it was “outdated” to talk about workers and bosses because apparently:
“We are all working together for the good of the country.”—[Official Report, 29/6/22; col. 645.]
I say to the Minister: go and tell that to the 3.6 million kids in poverty. Go tell it to them.
The Minister even claimed that the trade unions were a “minority profession”, which “do not represent anybody”. So I ask him again whether this is now the Government’s official position: that 6 million trade unionists do not count. Is this the justification for hobbling trade unions which are fighting for better pay to offset rampant inflation? We are still waiting for the mythical employment Bill—much talked about, but never seen. I remember the Government’s crocodile tears at P&O’s use of agency staff to undermine trade union rights and drive down pay and conditions, yet here they are now, proposing to enshrine such despicable practices into law. I asked the Minister who has been consulted over these changes, and he replied that there had been no consultation—as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said—since 2015.
My noble friend is right. The economy has changed significantly over the past seven years: Brexit, Covid and now the cost of living crisis. It is “wholly inappropriate” to rely on a seven year-old consultation, especially given
“the wider economic and political context”.
Those are not my words but those of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the REC, which represents agency firms—the employers—and of the TUC, representing trade unions. The REC even warned that these proposals leave employment agencies and their workers in an unfair moral position because of the pressure to break strikes. Let us stop pretending that this Government are on the side of working people, especially when they are slipping through major changes so underhandedly, with only a couple of hours of parliamentary debate.
Surely such a significant shift in workplace power deserves “proper parliamentary scrutiny”? Again, that is not just my opinion, but that of the REC and the TUC, which have both written to our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as the Minister mentioned, warning against these inflammatory changes being rushed through both Houses. The committee also expressed its concerns with the way the Government have introduced these statutory instruments, especially with their impact assessment—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said—which was delivered late and recognised as being of very poor quality, with a “lack of robust evidence”. Surely the Minister can see that these proposals deserve primary legislation, not sneaky SIs.
I ask the Minister: why this all-out war on trade unions, which risks breaching not just international conventions but even domestic law? Will he accept responsibility for poisoning industrial relations across this country as a result? I draw noble Lords’ attention to a contribution from the debate in the other place. The Conservative MP—yes, that is right, the Conservative MP—Alec Shelbrooke said:
“This agency worker measure was not in our manifesto, and it seems to have been done very quickly in reaction to what is going on in the public sector.”
After stating the obvious, that the private sector has
“quite a few unscrupulous employers”—
there is one for the record books—he hit the nail on the head:
“If people lose their ability to have an effect when they withdraw their labour, I am afraid they will effectively lose the ability to withdraw their labour.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/22; col. 93.]
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, this SI is the latest in a long line of steps, taken by successive Conservative Governments, to wrap trade unions in ever-more complex and restrictive dollops of red tape. It is almost a rite of passage for each Conservative Administration to slap fresh restrictions on unions. This SI is the latest in a long line. As my noble friend Lord Woodley has said, the Government were supposed to be introducing an employment Bill with new rights for workers—a positive step forward—but where is it? We keep asking, and again I pose that question to the Minister.
The Government were going to tackle the abusive practices of P&O Ferries in sacking staff and replacing them with agency workers, but where has that gone? Instead, they are now encouraging, through this SI, employers in a dispute to replace workers with agency staff. That looks to me like a U-turn, and one that is unacceptable to many of us.
A wiser Government would learn from their own successful experience with the furlough scheme, where they worked closely with unions and the TUC to devise a scheme that did much to see our country through the pandemic in reasonable shape. That degree of wisdom is sadly missing in this exercise we are talking about tonight.
A wiser Government would recognise that the current inflation is not due to wages but to Covid, the war in Ukraine and Brexit-related matters. In fact, our country’s experience is of stagnant wages and soaring profits, with real wages having been pretty flat since 2000, with the exception of executive pay, in the largest companies in particular, which grew during the pandemic alone by 29%. Is it any wonder that there could be an increase in labour unrest in the forthcoming period? Workers have got plenty to be restless about.
A wiser Government would seek to address this situation, not by playing to their own political gallery with this kind of gesture, but instead by seeking to work with unions, employers and all those concerned that might have some way of helping this country through a very difficult economic period ahead. Will the Minister, even at this stage, reflect on the request from many of us here tonight to put this SI in the recycling bin and tackle the real problems?
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Collins. Wages are rising at 4% per annum and prices are increasing at 11% per annum. It is a sad thing that the Government’s response is to take yet further measures to stop workers exercising the only leverage they have to maintain or even improve their standard of living. The Minister frankly admitted this evening that the purpose of the statutory instrument in relation to damages was to deter unions from striking, and that would be achieved by increasing the cap on damages by 400%. The point that I wish to raise with the Minister is that this further regulation of trade union freedom may well put the United Kingdom in breach of its international legal obligations, and it is to that that I will restrict my remarks.
My noble friend Lord Collins mentioned Article 3 of Convention 87 of the ILO, which is the most fundamental of all the ILO conventions, the international standards of labour. Article 3 guarantees that unions and employers’ associations can organise their activities
“free from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.”
Among the activities that unions must be free to organise is, of course, industrial action. Consequently, the relevant supervisory committee of the ILO—the quasi-judicial Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations—has said:
“Provisions allowing employers to dismiss strikers or replace them temporarily or for an indeterminate period are a serious impediment to the exercise of the right to strike.”
My noble friend Lord Collins mentioned a decision of the Committee on Freedom of Association to similar effect. The authoritative interpretation of conventions by these committees is recognised not only by the European Court of Human Rights and other courts, such as the Supreme Court of Canada, but by our domestic courts. Those committees have held for some time that, among other non-conformities, British law currently does not comply with the requirements of Convention 87, Article 3 because workers taking industrial action are inadequately protected.
I hope that the Minister is not going to say that he disagrees with the rulings of those two ILO committees. They are the supervisory bodies of Convention 87, and it would sound like the first-year law student who writes an essay saying that he disagrees with a judgment of the Supreme Court. I am sure the Minister will not be saying anything like that.
I wish to make an additional point before I sit down. Breach of an ILO convention is bad enough, particularly one ratified by and binding on the United Kingdom, of which the United Kingdom was the very first signatory back in 1948. Secondly, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement of 2021 involved the Government undertaking post Brexit to comply with various international treaties by which they were already bound. The effect is that non-compliance with these treaties is not only a breach of them but is unlawful on the additional ground that it is a breach of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. Paragraph 2 of Article 399 states:
“each Party commits to respecting, promoting and effectively implementing the internationally recognised core labour standards, as defined in the fundamental ILO Conventions”.
Paragraph 5 states:
“Each Party commits to implementing all the ILO Conventions that the United Kingdom and the Member States have respectively ratified and the different provisions of the European Social Charter that, as members of the Council of Europe, the Member States and the United Kingdom have respectively accepted.”
The UK has the obligation not only to respect and promote Convention 87, but also to effectively implement it. Those obligations surely prevent the UK adding an additional obstacle to the effective exercise of the right to strike by allowing agency strike breakers.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches are very concerned about the impact of strikes such as those planned to close down the rail network, preventing hard-working people, including emergency workers already suffering under the cost-of-living crisis, getting to work, but we do not believe these regulations are the answer.
This first statutory instrument appears to be a sham. It is another pretence at doing something instead of what the Government should actually be doing, which is enabling, empowering and facilitating employers to negotiate effectively with their employees and the trade unions that represent them to prevent the need for strikes in the first place. If the Government were taking effective action to mitigate the devastating further increases in the cost of gas and electricity this winter and the associated increases in the costs of essentials such as food and clothing, there would be less of a demand for large wage increases in the first place.
The report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee not only casts doubt on the practical effectiveness of the change brought about by this SI, but also points out the weakness of the Government’s own impact assessment, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has said.
Using agency staff to backfill those on strike is likely to prolong disputes—that is, even if employers can get agency workers. As the Trades Union Congress and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation have said, with 1.3 million vacancies in the UK, the number of agency staff available is declining rapidly, the opportunities for them to be employed are increasing and they will choose employment that does not involve having to cross picket lines.
According to UNISON, research shows that, with the best will in the world, agency staff less familiar with the workplace and working practices are more likely to make mistakes, have or cause accidents and cause harm to themselves and others, mainly because of a lack of training, lack of access to protective equipment and lack of supervision. If the Government think there are sufficient agency train drivers, signallers and trained station staff, who, for example, have to assist disabled passengers on and off trains, they are deluding themselves.
Even the British Medical Association is opposed to these regulations. The Government are required to consult before making changes, and yet, as other noble Lords have said, the last consultation was seven years ago, when, as a result, similar proposals were abandoned. Surely, a seven-year-old consultation is not sufficient, as the BMA suggests, and as the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, has said.
Even in that consultation seven years ago, the majority of businesses supplying agency staff said that the changes would have a negative effect. Some 49% of the respondents said it would have a negative impact on agency workers. On the impact on employers, 40% said it would have a negative impact. Only 24% said it would have a positive impact, as it would worsen the relationship between employers and employees if they backfilled with agency workers.
Despite all of that—despite the majority on all sides saying that this is a bad idea—the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The Government has carefully considered all these points and remains of the view that removing regulation 7 is the right course of action.”
If that is not the definition of pig-headedness, I do not know what is.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has set out in detail, doubt has also been cast on whether the change is compatible with international law, for which this Government have scant regard—be it genuine asylum seekers seeking sanctuary in the UK, or their proposed unilateral action on the Northern Ireland protocol. This Government are rapidly moving the UK towards being seen by others as a rogue state.
This statutory instrument is a poor and ineffective substitute for what the Government should be doing: being more effective in tackling the cost-of-living crisis and getting employees and employers around the table to prevent strike action in the first place.
With regard to the increase in the limit for damages for illegal strikes, rarely if ever is industrial action brought by trade unions if it is illegal. Other than intimidating trade unionists, we question the timing of such changes.
We support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate—which, I have to say, was a bit shorter than I expected. I will start with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I thank him for raising his concerns.
I repeat the point I made at the outset. This is very much a question of getting the right balance between, on the one hand, the right of individuals to strike, and on the other hand the rights of individuals to go about their daily lives, whether it be children taking an exam, people going to their hospital appointments or other workers wishing to go to work to do their jobs. These reforms will ensure that our laws strike the correct balance. In doing so, we are protecting the public from unwarranted disruption while, as I said, maintaining workers’ ability to go on strike, which, I repeat, will remain unaffected by these changes.
The noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Woodley and Lord Paddick, all referred to the consultation not having been carried out on the agency regulations since 2015. In response to those concerns, I would say that the consultation that we carried out in 2015 was extremely thorough. Given that, I struggle to see what a further consultation will bring up. Are there any new issues or objections that we are not already aware of? I think the response to that is no. As we said in response to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, some things have changed but the fundamental issues remain the same. I think that in their hearts, Opposition Peers know that that is the case. This is about finding that right balance between the rights of individuals to strike and the right of the public to go about their lawful daily business.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, also referred to the impact assessment. As I said in my opening remarks, it has been published, as we committed to do in the Explanatory Memorandum. As the impact assessment makes clear, this is a permissive change: employers will hire agency workers only if it makes sense for them to do so. There is no compulsion on them; it is permissive and their choice. Our assessment also shows that this change needs to lead only to a small reduction in the number of working days lost for it to have a positive effect on the economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, went on to question why it was necessary to raise the damages cap for unlawful strike action when damages are so rarely claimed—in which case, Opposition Peers’ concerns are ill founded. We are simply restoring the deterrent effect that Parliament intended when the original amounts were set.
The noble Lord also suggested that the increase in the cap would inhibit the ability of unions to take legitimate strike action. He himself made the point that there have been no recent cases on this matter. I also respectfully disagree with the point he makes. As I said, this change applies only to action which a court determines to be unlawful. If, as he suggests, trade unions go to the maximum possible trouble to make sure that their action is lawful, they will have nothing to be concerned about. I am sure that no noble Lord would suggest that unlawful strike action is acceptable in this day and age.
Let me address some of the other points made in the debate. My noble friend Lord Balfe asked whether agency workers would be willing to cross picket lines given current labour shortages. Again, this is a permissive change; nobody is going to be forced to take an assignment that they do not want to take. The point is that the current regulatory framework actually prevents them having that choice, and that cannot be right. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, raised concerns about the damage that this will do to the reputation of the recruitment sector, and the concerns of the employment businesses and others that have registered about this change. Nobody is being forced; nobody is being compelled; no employment businesses will have to supply workers to businesses facing industrial action. Again, it will be their choice to take part or not, as the case may be; no one is going to force them. We just do not see the point in having the blanket ban that we currently have.
The noble Lord, Lord Monks, drew some I think incorrect parallels with the P&O Ferries case earlier this year. This case is completely different. In the P&O Ferries case, the company has admitted deliberately choosing to ignore statutory consultation requirements when firing staff with no notice. All we are doing in the case of these changes is giving employers more flexibility to help them minimise the disruption that industrial action causes. Where proper procedures are followed, staff on strike should not lose their jobs; they will continue to have exactly the same legal protections that they already have.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, questioned whether these changes comply with our international legal obligations, including our commitments under trade and co-operation agreement. We have carefully considered all of these issues and we are confident that the changes are compliant with all of our international obligations—as, indeed, I told the noble Lord, Lord Collins, during Question Time last week. The ability of businesses to use agency staff does not affect individuals’ right to strike, and the protections those striking workers have in law remain unaffected. The Government are adjusting the balance between the right of workers to strike, and the rights of the wider public to go about their lawful business, and this falls well within our margin of appreciation when implementing international conventions.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, raised concerns about health and safety. Again, these concerns are not well founded, simply because this change does not change the broader health and safety rules that businesses still have to comply with. Similarly, the obligation on employment businesses to supply suitably qualified workers also remains in place. The aim of our trade union laws is to support an effective and collaborative approach to resolving industrial disputes, one that balances the interests of trade unions and their members with the interests of employers and the wider public. The changes we are making will, in my view, support that balance, and I therefore commend these draft regulations to the House.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, simply asserting something does not make it true, and that is exactly what the Minister has done tonight. In fact, the reason why this debate was perhaps shorter than he expected is that not a single person supported his line of argument; that is the issue here. He talks about strikes as if there is somehow a desire on the part of workers to go on strike; there is no such desire. It is when they face intransigence; when they face Governments who are determined that negotiations cannot take place—that is what we have heard. I have not heard a single word tonight supporting the Minister’s assertion that this Government are in favour of a collaborative approach. When we were collaborative, as my noble friend said, during the pandemic, the TUC worked hand in hand with this Government to make sure that the economy did not suffer long-term distress—and what is the payback? As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, says, it is simply to have a pop, to have a go, but with no evidence provided that it will achieve anything that the Minister suggests. It will entrench opinions and it will delay settlements.
The employers, the temporary agency firms—and there are many of them—provide a very necessary service. They provide flexibility in very difficult, tight labour markets, as we have heard, and this action will undermine and discredit them and make it more difficult for them to do their job. It has been a very interesting debate. I hope we will be able to read in Hansard what this Government really are about, because they assert something and do something else. I beg leave to move the amendment and divide the House.
Schools Bill [HL]
Monday 18th July 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Schools Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Schools Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 35-II Manuscript amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (18 Jul 2022)
Lord Moynihan
“Provision of defibrillators in schools and AcademiesThe Secretary of State must ensure that all schools and Academies are provided with sufficient numbers of defibrillators so that the defibrillators are easily accessible from each classroom and sports facility.”
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 104 concerns the provision of defibrillators in schools and academies. My purpose in proposing this amendment requires me to declare my interest as chair of the board of governors of the Haberdashers’ Monmouth Schools, where we educate over 1,100 children, and place the highest priority on safeguarding their interests in every activity in which they participate. In this we are led by an outstanding governor, Jo Booth.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who cannot be with us this evening, sadly; to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thomson, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for putting their names to this amendment, for offering my apologies in Committee when I was hosting a key meeting at the Monmouth Schools that Monday evening, and for their subsequent support; and to my noble friend the Minister, who has been active and diligent in listening to our case and, I hope, will respond positively this evening.
The Monmouth case was particularly important to me. The schools form a close-knit society, and from governor to ground staff there is pride in our schools and a strong sense of community. So it was that one of our popular and talented students joined his friends in the cricket nets at the idyllic sports grounds in the Wye Valley, shortly before last term’s half-term, for an evening’s practice session. There he was taken ill and, realising the seriousness of his condition, the master in charge gave him CPR twice. After the second time, he regained consciousness, and by the time the ambulance took him to hospital, his mum and dad were with him. I pay tribute to the staff who cared for him throughout. Had it not been for their professional care and devotion to the well-being of the students, it is more than likely that he would not have been with his parents at the end. Later that evening, he passed away, leaving family, teaching staff and all who knew him reflecting with a heavy heart on the tragedy, which continues to be felt by us all.
Sudden arrhythmic death syndrome kills 12 young people under 35 every week. Callum Stonier, a remarkable cricket coach and committed teacher on duty that evening, had decided that if our young, outstanding student had not come round from CPR, we would have used one of the five defibrillators in the school—the nearest, rightly, being close to the cricket nets in the pavilion. A defibrillator at the sports centre nearby had previously saved a life at one of our school sporting events.
Many noble Lords on all sides of this Chamber have made the case for ensuring that defibrillators are not a voluntary addition to a school’s first aid equipment and required just in new or refurbished schools, as is currently the policy, but a mandatory part of the first aid equipment in all our schools. In fact, if there is a strong enough argument that they should be a legal requirement for refurbished or new schools, there is an equally strong legal argument for the compulsory purchase of defibrillators in every school, as there should be. We should not and cannot differentiate between two groups of children; all their lives are equally important, and I am glad that the Government recognise that.
The announcement yesterday by the Government that they intend to do exactly what we have been campaigning for is exceptionally welcome. No doubt we will hear more detail in a moment. It is not just we in this House who have been campaigning. The Oliver King Foundation has for much longer been exceptionally active in this context. It has done outstanding and important work in lobbying to ensure that all schools have a defibrillator. It appears that the Government are now building on their current open-ended policy of engaging with civil society to ensure that there are defibrillators in all our 32,163 schools in the UK. A statutory duty will save lives, and the important relationships with civil society are the vehicle to ensure that this is done.
I hope my noble friend the Minister will confirm what we heard yesterday on the radio. I heard it at 6 am when I was driving to St Andrews for the final day of the golf, and I was absolutely delighted to hear the news that the Government intended to follow the spirit of the amendment before the House. No doubt it was because the Government were more than aware that there would be an overwhelming cross-party vote in favour of the legislation this evening, and I am delighted if that was the case. They acted first and deserve the credit for doing so, because their being in favour of the objectives behind such a long-running campaign is critical.
We owe my noble friend the Minister a great debt of gratitude and our warmest thanks for her personal commitment to this subject, without which I really do not believe this would have happened. Maybe I am being too optimistic; we will need to hear from other noble Lords this evening, and whether the announcement on the radio and from the Government yesterday is accurate, and potentially receive more details from my noble friend the Minister. If it was accurate, we should celebrate this evening. As far as I was concerned, it was great news from the Government and made an outstanding day’s golf all the more memorable, because it was even more important than the opportunity I had yesterday. It will allow us, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, my noble friend in sport, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and many others in this Chamber, to take this forward from schools and to really look at the importance of making sure that defibrillators are available in community sports fields and sports grounds and throughout the sporting world.
If this is true, I very much hope that it will be a first, important step in that direction. On that rather happier note than in many of the other debates in this House today, I beg to move.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the president of the Local Government Association, and I have a number of other interests in this area. I know that my noble friend Lord Aberdare is disappointed that he is not able to be in his place tonight; he is actively involved in the Procurement Bill. As I have previously talked about, 40% of sports facilities in England are behind school gates, so this is not only about protecting children, it is about all those people who use sports facilities.
I am disappointed that I was not going to St Andrews when I heard the news yesterday; I was merely out with a friend and we saw it on the television. I was absolutely delighted to read the social media post by the Department for Education, which said:
“We’re making sure every school in the country has a defibrillator. These life-saving devices increase the chance of survival from a cardiac arrest, and will help keep children, staff and local communities as safe as possible.”
I was even more delighted when I saw that it had been reposted by the Minister. I thank her for recognising the Oliver King Foundation, because its work in this space has been absolutely tireless.
The only question I have tonight is about the process and timescale for this announcement, because it is so incredibly important that we do this. I am sure that my noble friends will be coming back for more because, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, we need to be looking at community centres and at widening this, but this is a really important step forward.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it is now my job to hang on to the coattails of the people who did the real work on this and say thank you to the Minister. I do not know whether the fact that this amendment to the Bill is not to be accepted says something about confidence in the future of the Bill or the timescale involved. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us roughly the timescale on which this part of the coverage will be brought in.
Schools are an important factor; they predominantly deal with most of the sporting activity of the very young. However, while the correct terminology totally escapes me—the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, had it earlier—other heart problems will occur in middle-aged men running around trying to lose a few pounds; a group which I am probably waving goodbye to even now. We are setting down that other people will have heart conditions, which is helpful.
Getting this into other sports facilities is a fairly cheap, easy way of avoiding early death. If the Government could give us some idea of the plan for the future, after this provision—I am basically asking about the timescale, implementation and future development—that would be very helpful.
I say thank you to the Minister for this one, and to the Government, but hope it is just part of ensuring that we have universal coverage for those places where sport is usually played. It is a good start but is not the end of this story.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 109 in my name. I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I am grateful to the Public Bill Office for its assistance in redrafting this amendment and for a meeting with the Minister and her officials. This is very much a last-resort power.
The amendment is not about compelling schools to open when there is a dispute about their safety, which is a welcome clarification since Committee. I will not rehearse the details of the scenario I outlined in Committee but I do not believe that noble Lords have had a clear answer from my noble friend the Minister as to how, in the scenario of a serious failure in the school estate, where the Department for Education says that a school building is safe but the responsible body says it has an expert report to say that it is not, that stalemate is resolved. In those circumstances, the building would be closed as the responsible body makes the decision.
In addition to this scenario, it could be that although the expert report tells the responsible body that a school building is safe, it is extremely risk averse and refuses to open it. My noble friend the Minister said in Committee:
“However, we expect schools, trusts and local authorities to make decisions proportionate to the level of risk, and to minimise disruption”.—[Official Report, 27/6/22; col. 503.]
I think this is the nub of the issue. Some responsible bodies might not, in the Department for Education’s view, be acting proportionately because they have come to a different decision about the level of risk of opening that building. Some responsible bodies are very small charitable trusts or may even, unfortunately, be a local authority in great difficulty, and those responsible might rightly fear becoming personally liable under health and safety law for anything that then occurs in the building.
Such fear may be irrational, in the judicial review definition of that word. I have mused that without such a power to direct a responsible body to open, the Government are leaving themselves with only that remedy: they themselves would have to judicially review a responsible body and say that its decision was irrational or unreasonable in order to force that school to reopen. Would it really be irrational, in the ordinary view of that term, if there had been serious injuries caused by building materials in another part of the estate, for a responsible body to err on the side of caution—perhaps due to an ambiguous phrase in its own expert’s report—causing it to make such a decision?
The amendment has highlighted that the Department for Education understandably assumes that responsible bodies will behave in this scenario as they have done in the past, with the current level of risk that we know about on the school estate. In the scenario, the department’s excellent capital team comes alongside to give its additional expertise and a negotiated solution is reached—sometimes, sadly, including the temporary closure of buildings. However, if a serious incident has taken place, could it not be that some of the approximately 2,500 responsible bodies might justifiably now behave differently? What looks irrational now might not have then.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for agreeing to reach out to the, for me, newly-discovered disaster relief experts whose profession has gained a higher profile since the pandemic, and since Professor Lucy Easthope’s recent book When the Dust Settles was published. There may be other experts who can aid the department in assessing more accurately how responsible bodies might behave in this scenario.
One has only to look at the Grenfell tragedy to know that building managers and a whole host of other professionals are behaving very differently now. I am sure the department will be watching carefully the Health and Safety Executive inspections that are beginning, looking at schools’ ability to manage the asbestos within the school estate. If those inspections lead to any of the scenarios that I have outlined, the Secretary of State is powerless to act.
Further, my noble friend the Minister stated in Committee:
“The department taking on direct responsibility for school buildings, or compelling schools to open when they have safety concerns”—
the latter point has been dealt with—
“could actually reduce safety overall as it could undermine the incentive to maintain buildings effectively and obscure the currently clear responsibilities for the safety of pupils and staff in our schools.”—[Official Report, 27/6/22; col. 504.]
Again, that is quite an assumption by the Department for Education about responsible bodies’ behaviour. I am not sure on what evidence it is based, especially since what is in the amendment is a last-resort power. I hope the experts that the DfE meets are able to help my noble friend assess whether this assumption of how responsible bodies would behave is correct, as I am afraid it strikes me as rather unfair on responsible bodies to make such an assumption.
I understand that the Minister will be taking steps to ensure that responsible bodies are rigorous in undertaking checks and more detailed surveys as necessary where they have buildings in which the specific material reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, which we spoke about in Committee, could potentially be present. I am keen to hear more on that.
As I stated in Committee, in a Bill that attempts to take so many powers, I have managed to achieve that the Secretary of State has decided that they do not need this one. I sincerely hope, as I am sure other noble Lords do, that the scenario I have outlined never arises. I will not be asking for the opinion of your Lordships’ House today; this is a case of wait and see. I am sure noble Lords are with me in saying that we hope it is not a case of saying, “We told you so”.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Our Amendment 118F would require the Government to publish a report detailing the condition of school buildings by category of fault, whether it is boilers and pipe work, electrical services, lighting or IT. We would like to know their assessment of risk to children and staff, the geographical breakdown and the cost. We have not been able to glean all the information that we have been looking for from the Condition of School Buildings Survey from May 2021, and we think the problem is getting worse following years of neglect. We know that the total condition need is estimated to be £11.4 billion.
We have been alarmed, as have many others, at being made aware of leaked emails at the department describing school buildings as posing a “risk to life”. Schools have been fined for failing to tackle issues from disturbed asbestos to heavy lockers not attached to walls falling on to children. We have not been able to find a record of the number of school days lost due to building failure, whether that is snow days or, as we are seeing today, closures due to excessive heat.
Bad school buildings risk lost education and physical harm to children. Will the condition data collection 2 programme enable local MPs, for example, or councillors and parents to know the condition of school buildings in their area, the estimated costs and the assessment of risk? Will the number of days of education lost due to problems with buildings be published?
This is an important amendment to try to get some additional information. We may not divide the House tonight, but it will be returned to as the Bill progresses. It really should not take an amendment to do this; perhaps one of the noble Lords opposite could ask the candidates for Prime Minister where they stand on this issue, because I predict it will become of greater and greater political interest in the coming months.
I also place on record our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and others, especially the Oliver King Foundation, for their incredible work on defibrillators over many years. Let us hope the Minister can confirm what we think we know. This is such an important step and we all hope it will save lives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady Berridge for her Amendment 109 and for raising the important issue of building safety. I valued the opportunity to speak to her about her concerns last week. We absolutely agree with her about the importance of minimising disruption to education from closed buildings.
Our priority is the safety of pupils and staff. The most effective way of ensuring this is for those with day-to-day control of sites to be responsible. Only they have direct knowledge of the buildings, changes in their condition and how they are being used. As I set out in detail in Committee, the department provides significant capital funding, rebuilding programmes and guidance and support to help the sector deliver its responsibilities. I will say more shortly about how we provide more targeted programmes for specific risks across an estate of approximately 22,000 schools, with buildings of different ages and construction types.
We have carefully considered the scenario my noble friend set out. Our view remains that there are sufficient mechanisms in place to support the sector to keep buildings safe and open. Even if the department took on this role, a power as suggested in the amendment would not in practice speed up the decision-making process for buildings that closed on a precautionary basis. Decisions about whether it is appropriate to close school buildings on safety grounds should, as my noble friend stressed when we met, be based on advice from qualified surveyors. That would remain the case whether the department or a body responsible for school buildings was taking the decisions. We think it is very unlikely that schools would ignore professional advice that they have commissioned which says their buildings are safe; we think they would not want to disrupt education unnecessarily. Where surveys demonstrated issues, appropriate support would of course be available.
A power for the department to make directions about the safety of buildings could undermine incentives to maintain buildings effectively and to carry out appropriate checks, which could reduce safety for pupils and staff. Such a power could also risk some responsible bodies abdicating the decision on whether to keep schools open or reopen them, insisting that the department issue such directions. This could lead to an increased and avoidable loss in education, which I know all noble Lords are keen to prevent.
My noble friend has highlighted the issue of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, or RAAC, in some buildings. We published guidance on identifying and managing RAAC last year and continue to work across government to understand the issues relating to it better. We recently contacted responsible bodies to ask about their knowledge of RAAC, its presence in their buildings and how they are managing it. I reassure the House that we will follow up rigorously to ensure as complete a response as possible to help inform next steps.
Lord Shipley
“Local authorities: strategic education functions(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, provide that a local authority in England must perform the functions listed in subsection (2) on behalf of all state-funded schools in its authority area.(2) The functions are—(a) to ensure that every child of compulsory school age living in the local authority area has a school place;(b) to coordinate the provision of education to children who are at risk of exclusion from school;(c) to coordinate the provision of support to children with special educational needs or disabilities;(d) to act as the admissions authority for all state-funded schools in the local authority area, including by managing in-year admissions;(e) to manage the appeals process against individual admissions decisions;(f) to prevent pupils from being removed from the pupil roll of a school unlawfully;(g) to monitor the performance of schools; and(h) to monitor how schools engage with their local community.(3) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, provide that a local authority in England is given such powers as are reasonably necessary to perform the functions listed in subsection (2).(4) The powers conferred by regulations under subsection (3) must include, but not be limited to—(a) the power to request that the Secretary of State directs an Academy school to increase or reduce the number of pupils it admits; and(b) the power to require the proprietor of an Academy school to appear before a committee of the local authority to answer questions about the performance of the school or about how the school engages with the local community.(5) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, impose a duty on schools not maintained by the local authority to cooperate with the local authority in the performance of the functions listed in subsection (2).(6) The duty under subsection (5) must include, but not be limited to—(a) a requirement to inform the local authority of any plans that the school has to increase the number of pupils it admits; and(b) a requirement to provide pupil attendance data to the local authority when requested. (7) In this section—“local authority in England” has the same meaning as in section 579 of the Education Act 1996 (general interpretation);“state funded school” means a school in England funded wholly or mainly from public funds, including, but not limited to—(a) an Academy school, an alternative provision Academy or a 16 to 19 Academy established under the Academies Act 2010;(b) community, foundation and voluntary schools (within the meaning of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment gives local authorities new strategic functions in relation to all schools in their area.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I spoke to this in Committee and on the first day on Report. I just want to say that I welcome the Minister’s commitment on the first day on Report to developing a collaborative standard between trusts, local authorities and third sector organisations. It is an approach to be welcomed.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be taking part in the next group remotely, and I invite her to move her amendment.
Amendment 108
Baroness Brinton
“Duty to report child sexual abuse(1) Where a provider of activities in a school-age educational setting has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting the commission of sexual abuse of children who are in their care, they have a duty to report their knowledge or suspicion as soon as practicable to—(a) the local authority designated officer (LADO),(b) children’s services, or(c) such other single point of contact with the local authority as designated by that authority for the purpose of reporting the knowledge or suspicion of sexual abuse of children.(2) The duty in subsection (1) applies whether the abuse has taken place in the setting of the regulated activity or elsewhere.(3) The duty under subsection (1) applies to—(a) the operators of a setting in which the activity takes place;(b) staff employed in any such setting in a managerial or general welfare role;(c) all other employed, contracted or voluntary staff and assistants only for the period of time during which they have had direct personal contact with such a child.(4) For the purposes of subsection (1) children are in the care of providers of regulated activities—(a) in the case of the operators of any setting in which the regulated activity takes place and of staff employed by the operators at any such setting in a managerial or general welfare role, for the period of time during which the operators are bound contractually or otherwise to accommodate or care for such children whenever the regulated activity is provided, and (b) in the case of all other employed or contracted staff or voluntary staff and assistants, for the period of time only in which they are personally attending such children in the capacity for which they were employed or their services were contracted for.(5) A person who fails to fulfil the duty in subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.(6) It is a defence to show that the LADO, children’s services or other single point of contact was informed by any other party of the commission or suspected commission of sexual abuse.(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.(8) A person who makes a report under subsection (1) in good faith, or who does any other act as required by this section, cannot by so doing be held liable in any civil or criminal or administrative proceeding, and cannot be held to have breached any code of professional etiquette or ethics, or to have departed from any acceptable form of professional conduct.(9) A person who causes or threatens to cause any detriment to a person to whom subsection (1) applies, or to another person, either wholly or partly related to the person’s actual or intended provision of a report under this Act, is guilty of an offence.(10) In subsection (9) “detriment” includes any personal, social, economic, professional, or other detriment to the person.(11) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (9) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.(12) In this section—“children” means persons who have not attained the age of 18 years;“providers of activities” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, in so far as the activity takes place in a school-age educational setting.”
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
Amendment 108 in my name is on mandatory reporting of child sex abuse. I thank the Minister for her comments at the Dispatch Box in Committee, when she said that the Government have no evidence that mandatory reporting is effective. In my contribution, I referred specifically to academic research in countries where mandatory reporting has been introduced and is working well. It is evidenced, but the Government clearly do not want to look at it.
Teachers in Australia, who were unhappy with the principle prior to its introduction, now feel it has given them more confidence in reporting suspicions and that they would not be ignored by the school or, worse, punished for reporting difficult evidence. Professor Ben Mathews from Queensland University of Technology, a world expert in mandatory reporting and how it works in practice, gave evidence in 2019 to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse. I hope that, once Ministers have read this evidence and the comments of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse victims’ group when they responded to a survey on mandatory reporting, the Government would reconsider.
I am very well aware that the IICSA will be publishing its final report in the autumn. I understand that the Government will want to wait until then and will respond in due course, but I remain concerned that there is not a will yet to understand how mandatory reporting is transforming the reporting on child sex abuse by educational professions. I beg to move.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 118D would mean teachers in all schools would be
“required to have, or be enrolled on a course such that they are working towards, qualified teacher status”
before September 2024. I have spoken extensively previously about teachers without QTS having less pedagogical training and less subject knowledge than their qualified colleagues, although I do note the Minister’s previous replies to this on several occasions. However, I firmly believe the Government need to match the ambition of Labour’s national excellence programme. This amendment will begin to address these current failings.
Amendment 118E would mean that, within a year of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State, whoever he or she will be, would have to ensure that
“every … school is working towards establishing a breakfast club, able to provide a free breakfast to every pupil who requests one”.
Yet again this evening, the UK Government could learn from what the Labour Government are doing in Wales: providing free breakfasts in primary schools has been an integral part of the wider work the Welsh Government have done to improve food and nutrition in schools maintained by local authorities since September 2004.
Finally, Amendment 118I would mean that, within six months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State would have to
“consult on and launch a school children’s pandemic recovery plan”.
The consultation would include:
“free breakfast clubs … extra-curricular activities for every child … provision of … in-school mental health counselling staff … small group tutoring … ongoing learning and development for teachers, and … an education recovery premium”.
This may include uplifting the current premium rate by 10%, increasing the early years pupil premium to match the premium rates for primary school pupils, and expanding the secondary age pupil premium to include pupils aged 16 to 18 and children with child protection plans. There is so much to do but this amendment clearly sets out the difference between what a Labour Government would do for the children and young people of England compared with what little they are now receiving and will continue to receive under this Conservative Government.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I was for a short time a governor—the noble Baroness is looking at me as if I am doing something wrong—of our local primary school. I remember at a governors’ meeting that one of the teacher-appointed members of the governing body was the English teacher. The only trouble was that he could hardly speak any grammatical English. I wondered often—and spoke to the headmistress about it—how good he was at teaching English.
Two other amendments are being considered in this group, both in the names of my two noble friends on the Front Bench. I support both of those. It is not easy to set up breakfast clubs and the like at primary schools. You have to stretch teachers to provide those services but when they can be provided, they are of enormous assistance and enable parents to go and get on with their lives—nothing could be easier. It also ensures that children start with a good breakfast.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 118L in my name and I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Although we were too late to get him on the list, this is also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead. He was the first chair of Feeding Britain, a job he passed on to me.
This is a very simple amendment which would mean that families of pupils who are eligible to receive free school meals are automatically registered rather than having to opt in. By the Government’s best estimate, 11% of children who are eligible are not registered. This could mean that up to 200,000 children in England are missing out on both a nutritious meal and the pupil premium.
We have investigated this a great deal at Feeding Britain. We know that it works. When the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, was in the other place he attracted cross-party support from 125 Members, but that Session drew to a close before his Bill could receive a Second Reading. As well as the support, my amendment has the advantage of being proven to work. When automatic registration has been piloted, as it was under the old housing benefit regime in the Wirral, more than 600 additional children were automatically signed up.
The Children’s Commissioner, the Local Government Association and Henry Dimbleby, in the national food strategy, have all supported this, and this amendment really goes with the grain of government policy in other areas, such as the warm home discount and cost of living payments. Even my own pension arrives automatically, whether I want it or not. It seems quite extraordinary that a child has to opt in to get a meal, especially now in the cost of living crisis. This is a very simple and straightforward amendment and I urge the Government to accept it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am aware of the hour and will be extremely brief. I just want to speak in favour of Amendment 118L, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I want to make two points in addition to what she said, while associating myself with what she said and noting that the noble Lord, Lord Field, has also shown his support for this.
First, the children who are the most vulnerable, from families which for whatever reason—language difficulties, other disadvantages—may find it difficult to navigate the system, are those who need those free school meals the most. If we do not have an automatic opt-out system, the people who miss out will include the most vulnerable.
The other point is that, a couple of weeks ago, a survey by LACA, the school caterers’ trade body, demonstrated that despite the number of pupils eligible for free school meals rising very significantly, more than half of the caterers surveyed were seeing the number of free school meals that they were providing going down. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, we know that so many families are struggling with the cost of living crisis. This very modest amendment would at least ensure that those who are eligible for free school meals are getting them. I would like to see free school meals expanded much further and perhaps renamed to take away some of the stigma. This would simply ensure that people who are entitled to something get it. They are not only entitled to it; people desperately need these healthy school meals.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I begin by responding to Amendment 108, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, regarding mandatory reporting. As we set out in the March 2018 government response to the reporting and acting on child abuse consultation, and as the noble Baroness quoted me as saying—though perhaps I should have been clearer—there was no clear evidence from those who responded to the consultation to show that introducing a mandatory reporting duty would help keep children safe, and therefore the case was not made for its introduction. We are keeping this under review, and we await the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which is expected in the autumn.
Schools and colleges are already under legal duties to exercise their functions to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. This includes having regard to the Keeping Children Safe in Education 2022 statutory guidance, which makes it clear that if staff have any concerns about a child’s welfare, they should act on them immediately, and that any concerns should be referred to local authority children’s social care. Many other settings, such as extracurricular activities or clubs, are already required to register with Ofsted and must ensure that they have the processes and policies in place to safeguard the children they look after. That includes reporting any incident or allegation of serious harm or abuse to Ofsted, or any significant event that might affect someone’s suitability to look after or be in regular contact with children.
In all such cases Ofsted will pass the information to the relevant police or local authority and take appropriate action to ensure the safety of children cared for at the registered provider. Where settings are not registered with Ofsted, our guidance is clear that these settings should have clear escalation routes to manage concerns and allegations against staff and volunteers that might pose a risk of harm to children.
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman and Lady Wilcox, for Amendments 118D, 118I and 118E regarding qualified teacher status, education recovery and breakfast clubs. Amendment 118D would restrict the flexibility that school leaders in academies currently have to recruit unqualified teachers and goes further than the restrictions currently imposed on maintained schools via the Education Act 2002. The current scheme allows maintained schools to employ teachers without qualified teacher status in several circumstances beyond those where a teacher is working towards qualified teacher status. This amendment would also remove those limited freedoms for maintained schools.
On Amendment 118I, we know that the impacts of the pandemic have been significant for all children, especially those who are disadvantaged, which is why we are targeting our support at those most in need. The latest evidence suggests that recovery is under way following the Government’s almost £5 billion investment for a comprehensive recovery package. Since spring 2021, primary pupils had recovered around two-thirds of progress lost in reading and around half of progress lost in maths. By May 2022, 1.5 million courses had already been started by children across England through the National Tutoring Programme. I can confirm that the latest data is due to be published imminently, and we expect to see a further significant increase.
Through the catch-up and recovery premium, we have provided £950 million of direct funding to schools, to help them deliver evidence-based approaches for those pupils most in need. The Government are providing an additional £1 billion to extend the recovery premium over the next two academic years. Additionally, this year, through the national funding formula, we are allocating £6.7 billion towards additional needs, including deprivation. The Government are also increasing pupil premium funding to £2.6 billion this year, and allocating £200 million a year to support disadvantaged pupils as part of the holiday activities and food programme over the next three years. Altogether, we are allocating £9.7 billion this year for pupils with additional needs, including deprivation.
On Amendment 118E, the Government recognise that a healthy breakfast can play an important role in ensuring that children from all backgrounds have a healthy start to their day, so that they enhance their learning potential. We are committed to supporting school breakfasts, and our approach has always been to support pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds who are most in need of that provision. We are investing up to £24 million in the national school breakfast programme for 2021-23, and will support up to 2,500 schools in disadvantaged areas, which will be targeted by the programme. Alongside our national programme, schools can also consider using their pupil premium funding to support their financial contribution to breakfast club provision, as endorsed by the Education Endowment Foundation’s pupil premium guide. Overall, the Government are investing significantly to support children from low-income families, and it is right that we are targeting investment towards those who are most in need.
Finally, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Bennett, for Amendment 118L regarding free school meals. We want to make sure that as many eligible pupils as possible are claiming their free school meals, and to make it as simple as possible for schools and local authorities to determine eligibility. We provide an eligibility checking system to make the checking process as quick and straightforward as possible, and we continue to use and refine a model registration form to help schools encourage parents to sign up for free school meals.
We are also continuing to explore the options and delivery feasibility of introducing auto-enrolment functionality. However, there are complex data, systems and legal implications of such a change, which require careful consideration. Therefore, we think it is premature to change this through primary legislation at the moment, but I would be happy to meet both noble Baronesses to discuss how we can move this forward. For the reasons outlined, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 118D in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Chapman, talks about the importance of ensuring that all trainee teachers are working towards qualified teacher status. Amendment 118E outlines the important way that breakfast club arrangements work well in Wales, and Amendment 118I focuses on a recovery plan of pupil premiums. We are so delighted that Labour is as keen as the Lib Dems on the pupil premium, which we brought in during the coalition, and which we have pushed the Conservatives to expand since those days. I hope the Government will now consider it.
Amendment 188L from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on free school meals is simple—ensuring an auto opt-in and a voluntary opt-out, so that no child will slip through the net—and probably virtually without cost.
I am grateful to the Minister for her response to my Amendment 108. I am relieved that she clarified things by saying that there was no evidence of mandatory reporting working from a survey, which is rather different from the strong body of academic research from around the world that now shows that mandatory reporting makes a big difference. I hope the Government will look at that research—IICSA certainly has. I am very much looking forward to seeing the IICSA report in the autumn. I hope that it will make clear recommendations on mandatory reporting. I will not press this to a vote this evening so, with that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 108.