House of Commons
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mark Spencer)
I draw the attention of the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also pay tribute to the previous Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team, who did fantastic work supporting UK agriculture, the environment and rural communities.
I can report to the House that Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has caused huge ripples around the world in spiking energy and food costs. Food costs rose by 12.7% in this year to July, but the Government have already taken action to support farmers, pulling forward this year’s basic payment scheme payments and making sure that consumers are supported with their energy bills, with a huge package to support people with the cost of living.
Marion Fellows
I welcome the Minister to his new place. National Farmers Union of Scotland president Martin Kennedy has urged the new Prime Minister to immediately, on behalf of all food producers and consumers,
“address the brutal ‘here and now’ facing farming and food production whilst delivering an unequivocable commitment to the importance of food security across the UK”.
Given that the Prime Minister was formerly a DEFRA Minister, what funding support is being considered for Scottish and UK food producers, and what plans are there to ensure that affordable food is secured for consumers?
Mark Spencer
I hope the hon. Lady will recognise the contribution of UK farmers across generations to keeping the UK and Europe well fed for decades, which will of course continue. The Government are committed to supporting UK farmers through the use of taxpayers’ money, and I am sure that will also continue, but this is a challenge that we take very seriously and she will see that support over the coming months.
Chris Stephens
I welcome the Minister to his new role. Will he encourage the large supermarkets to enable community food projects such as Threehills Community Supermarket in Glasgow South West to purchase much-needed top-up supplies in bulk from their depots at as discounted a cost as possible, and can he assure the House that community food projects will be given top priority in his Department?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that retailers will play a huge part in solving the challenges we face, not only in the United Kingdom, but across the whole world, with the price of food going up. The Government continue to engage with those food retailers, and we will support them in any way we can to try to help our consumers. He also highlights community projects, which have a huge part to play in meeting the challenge.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
Local food partnerships could play an important role in providing resilience and healthy, cost-free produce to the local community. In this time of drought and water restrictions, however, South East Water has not made an explicit exemption for such partnerships, and that will really curtail their activity. Will the Minister join me in calling on the company to revisit its position—in line, I believe, with other water companies?
Mark Spencer
Of course those water companies have other responsibilities as well, but the use of water for agricultural food production will be fundamental to our success. My hon. Friend may be aware that there is a debate in Westminster Hall later today on food infrastructure, and she may want to come and contribute to that debate.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I warmly welcome the new Farming Minister to his place. I am delighted to see that he has been appointed during Love Lamb Week; he certainly knows his way around a lamb dinner. The sheep farmers in my Brecon and Radnorshire constituency produce world-class food that is good for our health, our environment and the rural economy. Will he take this early opportunity to restate his commitment to the red meat sector, and may I invite him to visit one of the seven livestock markets in my constituency?
Mark Spencer
I contemplated denying liking a lamb dinner, but I do not want to start by misleading the House. We recognise the huge contribution that Welsh farmers make not only to lamb production, but to food supplied to our country, and I would be delighted at some point, if my diary allows, to visit Brecon and Radnorshire to see one of those livestock markets.
Mr Speaker
I think there will be a lot of nervous lambs in Wales awaiting that visit. Let us come to the shadow Secretary of State, Jim McMahon.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
First, may I welcome the new Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), 54and his Ministers to their place? I look forward to a constructive relationship, but it will be a testing relationship, as we work through the catalogue of failures left by his predecessor.
Rocketing food costs have pushed inflation to a 40-year high and, according to the Bank of England, households and food producers are set to face harder pressures yet. Last week, I received a letter from a family bakery who are extremely worried that their energy bills are increasing by 380%, potentially risking the viability of some of their stores. An energy crisis, a food security crisis, a labour crisis and an import cost crisis—how much worse is it going to get for businesses and the 7 million people already in food poverty?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and look forward to working with the Opposition Front Bench. I would strongly push back at his comments about the previous Secretary of State. The work he did to support rural communities and UK agriculture was fantastic, and we should pay tribute to him for that. Of course, Vladimir’s invasion of Ukraine has caused massive ripples. It is a global challenge, but we are in a position where the UK economy is fit, and that puts us at an advantage compared with some of our competitors around the world. We will be able to intervene to try and assist people. We have already committed to £37 billion of support for consumers, and if the hon. Gentleman waits, he will be able to listen to the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box later today setting out her plans to support those businesses and people across the country.
Mr Speaker
May I welcome the SNP spokesperson, Pete Wishart, to his new position?
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Thank you ever so much, Mr Speaker. It feels like business questions. I thought I was getting away from the right hon. Gentleman, but there is seemingly no escape. May I welcome him to his new role and congratulate the new Secretary of State? I know they have a huge inbox—they do not have to seek problems. As we have heard, there are rocketing prices for the rural economy and astronomical price rises for the consumer, and on top of that there is a fertiliser crisis, agflation in the sector and a harvest that remains unpicked because of the lack of seasonal labour. So is this the right time to pick a fight with the EU over the Northern Irish protocol, with the real risk of tariffs being introduced for the sector? Is now not the time to climb down, negotiate properly and get the best possible solution for our farmers, our producers and our consumers?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; I, too, thought I had escaped him. He will be surprised to know that there is another method available to us, which the SNP does not understand. We do not have to pick a fight with everybody; we can actually talk to people and negotiate, and that is what we are doing with the EU. We are trying to build relationships rather than pick a fight with the whole world.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mark Spencer)
Fertilisers make up around 9% of input costs into food production. Cost increases may be absorbed at various points within the supply chain, but of course we should recognise that there has been a huge spike because global energy prices are going up. The Government recognise that input costs have increased and are challenging cash flow. That is why we brought forward the direct payments to try to help people with their cash flow, and we will continue to monitor that as we move forward.
Justin Madders
Last month my constituents at CF Fertilisers were made redundant. Within days of that happening, the company announced that it was halting CO2 production at its plant in Billingham. I know that the Minister is new in place, but I warned his predecessors again and again that we could not afford to be in such a vulnerable position and that we should have got the company sold to the many people who are interested in purchasing it. I am so disappointed that we have got to this point, because it was completely avoidable. Will he, on behalf of his Department, apologise to my constituents who have lost their jobs unnecessarily and to everyone in the country who will be paying more for their food as a result of this very short-sighted decision?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Of course, we do not want the company to be able to exploit the monopoly position it holds within the marketplace. It has ceased the production of ammonia at the plant, but it will continue to produce ammonium nitrate and nitric acid. The Government continue to engage with the plant to make sure we can secure supplies of fertiliser and other products.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the Chair of the Select Committee, Sir Robert Goodwill.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I do not think the situation could be any more serious for farmers in this country, both grain farmers and grass farmers. The UK requires around 2.2 million tonnes of nitrogen fertiliser, and about 1 million tonnes of that came from the Ince plant and the Billingham plant. The Ince plant is shut and the Billingham plant is paused while waiting for deliveries of ammonia in order to switch from North sea gas. In welcoming the Minister to his place on behalf of the Committee, may I ask him to say when the first load of ammonia will arrive at Billingham and when production will commence? There is a real fear that the plant might not start, and then we will really be in serious trouble.
Mark Spencer
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. That is something that we take seriously. We recognise the huge challenge to not only UK agriculture, but other sectors around the country. He will be aware that AdBlue, which many diesel cars up and down the country use, is also dependent on products of a similar nature. We will have to work together as an industry to look at other alternatives. We may have to look back at our ancestors and how agriculture operated in the ’30s and ’40s, with nitrogen-fixing crops and other agriculture methods, to solve some of the challenges that we face.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place. I am sure that we will work constructively together, and I look forward to swapping Benches at the earliest opportunity. He knows the effect that high input costs have on farmers, whether that is fuel, fertiliser or labour. I am sure that one of the first questions he put to his civil servants was about the CO2 impacts of the shutdown of those facilities. Rather than just reassuring us, will he publish the Department’s assessment of the CO2 consequences of any shutdown at those plants?
Mark Spencer
Of course, we recognise the challenge. I have been in post for 12 hours, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I have not been able to make a full assessment of the position.
Mark Spencer
It is tempting to resign, to be honest, but I will resist at this moment. We continue to have those conversations. We recognise the size of the challenge. If the hon. Gentleman gives us a small window, we will be able to make a full assessment of where we are at.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mark Spencer)
The Government are working to ensure that UK agriculture and fishing sectors secure the labour that they need. We know that there is a shortage of labour and it is difficult for businesses across the food sector. That is why the Prime Minister committed during the leadership campaign to looking at expanding seasonal worker schemes. The Government have already expanded the number of people in the seasonal worker route to 40,000 for horticulture and poultry in 2022; we have commissioned an independent review into labour shortages in the food supply chain in England; and we launched a £10 million skills and training scheme in August 2022 to support new entrants in the fishing sector.
John Nicolson
Ending the freedom of movement has been a catastrophe for constituencies such as Ochil and South Perthshire, with labour shortages in every sector, especially food production. The lack of seasonal workers and the food rotting in the fields are evidence of yet more Brexit chaos. We all must surely agree that food waste is a scandal. Given that the new Prime Minister pledged to expand the seasonal worker scheme if she was elected, when will that be done?
Mark Spencer
I think we need to give the Prime Minister longer than 48 hours to deliver on that commitment. The hon. Gentleman would have kept us in the common fisheries policy by remaining in the EU. The country requires an immigration system that benefits the United Kingdom; we should not just have an open door to anybody who wants to come. We need to be able to select the people who will assist the UK economy and make sure that the people who come to the United Kingdom benefit the United Kingdom.
Martyn Day
Key sectors are facing acute labour shortages because of a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for. Salmon Scotland has reported very low unemployment and extremely limited labour availability in rural areas, with processing factories 20% light on staff. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that fishing communities and processing sites have the necessary supply of workers?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As I set out, the seasonal agricultural worker scheme is a huge opportunity for people to come to the United Kingdom to support the sector, but we need to make sure that we get the right people coming to support our economy. The last thing that we should do is erect a border between Scotland and the rest of the UK—that would be a tragedy for Scotland. I hope he will reflect on trying to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I welcome the new Secretary of State and the new farming Minister to their places. The seasonal worker scheme is essential to the fruit sector in my constituency of Faversham and Mid Kent, so can my right hon. Friend assure me that it will be not only extended, but improved—and sooner rather than later—so that British consumers can continue to enjoy British fruit?
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for rural businesses in Kent. I hope she will be aware that in December 2021 the seasonal worker visa route was extended to 2024. This visa route allows overseas workers to come to the UK for up to six months each year to harvest edible and ornamental crops. In June, the Government announced that the food strategy will see the release of an extra 10,000 visas for the seasonal worker route, and this is something the Prime Minister committed to in the leadership election. We recognise the challenge, and we will do all we can to provide support.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I welcome the new Secretary of State and the Minister to their positions, and I look forward to working with them. A number of those at Montgomeryshire agricultural shows raised the issue of labour shortages, and while it is great to have record levels of unemployment in Montgomeryshire, we need people in our dairy farms, our abattoirs and across our food sector. Can I implore the Minister, if he is indeed enjoying a lamb dinner in Brecon and Radnorshire, to venture up to the other half of Powys and come to the biggest Welsh lamb market in the United Kingdom to talk about these important labour shortages and what we can do?
Mark Spencer
I realise what I have started here. Of course, I recognise the contribution that Welsh farmers are making. I think we should celebrate the fact that unemployment is so low, but in sectors such as the one my hon. Friend describes, that does bring its own challenges. We recognise such challenges, which is why we have the seasonal agricultural worker scheme, and we will be continuing to expand that as we negotiate with the Home Office to make sure the scheme works.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The volume of sewage spewed out by water companies is completely unacceptable, and the public have rightly shown their outrage. Yesterday, in my first day in office, I told water chief executives that it is not good enough, and I have instructed them to write to me formally by 21 September with a plan for how they will make significant improvements. I also met the Environment Agency and Ofwat, and I told them that they should use every enforcement power available to them to make sure that there is compliance. I will not hesitate to take further action if I do not see the pace of change that this House expects.
Catherine West
Over the summer, I had the pleasure of meeting those from the Hampstead and Highgate Angling Society, who fish in all 32 London boroughs. The River Wandle has had a very bad incident of water pollution, which included human sewage, and in the past the Environment Agency itself has said that the fines meted out to Thames Water were “not sufficient”. What is the Secretary of State going to do to improve this desperate situation?
Mr Jayawardena
First, it is this Government who introduced the monitoring that allows us to know what is going on. Secondly, it was this Government who introduced the Environment Act 2021, which allows the Environment Agency to levy unlimited fines on water companies.
Sarah Olney
We all looked on in horror at the viral images of beaches in Sussex being destroyed by disgusting sewage overflows. I have heard that businesses in the area that are very reliant on income from tourists—from beachside cafés in Seaford to tourist hotspots in Eastbourne—have lost money because beaches were shut and people were put off swimming in poisoned water. Will the Minister demand that Southern Water compensates Sussex seaside businesses?
Mr Jayawardena
First, I have already set out to the House what I intend to do. Secondly, I would observe that the Liberal Democrats’ plan is simply to play politics with this serious issue. When they were in government they did not take the action that we have done now. Sadly—and this is the serious point—what they are calling for in their leaflets is for sewage to flow back into people’s homes, because that is the consequence of what they are proposing.
Kate Osborne
Since asking a question on this issue in the House on Tuesday, we now have a new Secretary of State—I welcome him to his place—but we also have a new wave of sewage warnings across the country. Over 100 beaches have pollution warnings for untreated sewage. Water companies such as Northumbrian Water in my area have paid billions in dividends for dumping filthy raw sewage on to our playing fields, our beaches and our waters, and that is having a huge impact on biodiversity and public health. I went to the River Don in Boldon in my constituency a few weeks back, and the stench alone made clear the scale of the issue. The last Minister refused to do anything about this environmental vandalism. Will the new Minister take urgent action?
Mr Jayawardena
First, I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s account at the end of her question. The Government have been working on this issue, and we passed the landmark Environment Act 2021. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Double) published his plan over the summer, and we set out in that plan that there will be £56 billion of capital investment to tackle these issues. Indeed, we have ruled out some of the rises that the Opposition would have liked, which have added £122 to household bills. As I set out to the House, we are tackling this.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Ripping out our existing combined sewerage infrastructure is simply unaffordable, but will the Secretary of State, who I welcome to his post, look at sustainable development systems of the sort that have been implemented to very good effect in cities as far away as China and North America, particularly as the Government look at revising their planning laws to build much-needed housing?
Mr Jayawardena
I thank my right hon. Friend for what he says. He is right that we should look at innovation from around the world to ensure that we are transforming our infrastructure, including in the water system.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his position, and I am pleased with the strength of the DEFRA team. I have spoken to him this morning about flooding on the River Severn, and I have also been contacted by residents of Coton Hill about the quality of the River Severn through Shrewsbury, and some of the discharge issues that he has heard about. Will he please accept my invitation to visit the River Severn and meet residents, and hear their strength of feeling about the need for him to take action on this essential issue?
Mr Jayawardena
My hon. Friend is a great champion for these issues, and I welcome what he said earlier. Although I do not know what is in my diary tomorrow, I would be delighted to visit at the earliest opportunity, and for other Ministers to do the same.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
The Liberal Democrats seem obsessed with my constituency, whether that is the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) this morning, or the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) yesterday. Does the Secretary of State agree that they need to be honest with people in my town of Seaford that their plan, when heavy rainfall occurs, would result in sewage backing up into people’s homes, gardens and roads, and that the Government’s £56 billion investment is the only sustainable solution?
Mr Jayawardena
My hon. Friend is a great champion for her constituents and constituency, and she is right to say that although storm overflows should not be used, they are a safety valve. They stop the flooding of raw sewage back into people’s homes—that is what the Liberal Democrats are promising.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Over the summer, the Government allowed water bosses to dump sewage on 90 beaches in our coastal hotspots—the foundation of those visitor economies—affecting already hard-squeezed businesses that are barely keeping their heads above water. We hear that the Secretary of State is satisfied by a telephone call with water bosses, but does he not realise that they are laughing at him? They are laughing at Ofwat, laughing at the Environment Agency, laughing at the country, and laughing all the way to the bank. Without tougher penalties to ensure that there is a bottom line, they will not change their behaviour. Does he agree that there must be tougher sanctions, including prison sentences?
Mr Jayawardena
I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to be constructive, but now he is playing politics. Clearly he was not listening when I set out my plan a moment ago. First, the water companies are reporting back in two weeks, and secondly we have legislated to issue unlimited fines through a criminal process, and we will not hesitate to do more.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mark Spencer)
The UK’s rivers and seas boast some of the greatest biodiversity and marine life anywhere in the world. The Government have prioritised protecting species, not least by leaving the common fisheries policy that did so much to damage fish stocks. We have also announced plans to reduce the sewage being discharged in our seas and rivers, and we have recently taken action to protect our precious chalk streams against drought.
Alex Cunningham
I hope that the Minister is aware of the ecological disaster off the coast of Teesside and North Yorkshire that has had a devastating effect on the fishing industry. Catches are now less than 10% of what they were, and it appears that a large part of our sea is dead or dying. When will Ministers recognise that they cannot rely on the conclusion that an algal bloom was probably the cause of this disaster, order a more comprehensive study into what is happening and come up with solutions to save our sea?
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to the Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, who has done a lot to highlight the issue. We do have to listen to science and the scientists who have done investigations, and one of their conclusions was that the algal bloom was a huge factor. We continue to talk to bodies in the north, including the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which is continuing to carry out tests on material from the north-east coast. It is a challenge that we recognise, and we will continue to work with the authorities in that part of the country.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was introduced in June 2021 as part of our animal welfare action plan. The Bill delivers three important manifesto commitments—strengthening protections for pets, farmed and kept wild animals—as well as other valued reforms. It was reintroduced in May following Her Majesty’s most Gracious Speech and will continue to Report as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Mr French
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer and welcome him to his position. I am sure that he will do an excellent job and look forward to working with him. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to the kept animals Bill, which will introduce landmark protections for pets, livestock and kept wild animals. That will include helping in the fight against puppy and kitten smuggling and cracking down on pet theft. Those milestone protections are hugely important to my constituents in Old Bexley and Sidcup who, like me, are animal lovers—hopefully, they may even vote for Westminster dog of the year next week. Will he provide assurances that the Government’s commitment to this landmark legislation will mean that Ministers will now go further and explore measures such as increasing the minimum age at which dogs can be brought to the UK, and prohibiting the importation to the UK of heavily pregnant dogs and those with cropped ears?
Mr Jayawardena
The kept animals Bill does include the powers to introduce those restrictions through secondary legislation. Last year, Her Majesty’s Government launched a consultation that proposed measures for both commercial and non-commercial movements of dogs into Great Britain, and I am told that there were more than 20,000 responses, so there was clearly a great deal of interest from the public. My Department will publish a response in due course.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the new Secretary of State to his place. I pay tribute to the previous DEFRA team and look forward to continuing a robust relationship with the new team.
On a recent visit to Battersea here in London and to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Newport, I saw the consequences of the Tory cost of living crisis. I heard about Frasier, a four-year-old domestic short-hair cat who was taken to Battersea in June by his heartbroken owner who was facing financial hardship and could no longer afford to keep his beloved pet. That is happening across our country because people cannot afford to keep their family pets, so we need a plan. Will the Secretary of State tell us what it is?
Mr Jayawardena
First, the Government will cut people’s taxes. We are going to let people keep more of their own money. We are going to ensure that people continue to have great jobs in the economy by incentivising investment in our businesses. If the hon. Lady and Opposition Members are willing to stay in the House a bit longer, they will hear from the Prime Minister herself.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
It is a privilege to be asked to serve as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In doing so, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) for his nine years of service as a Minister in the Department, and to all those who served with him. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister set out her commitment to get Britain growing. That means backing our thriving British food industry, working for a cleaner environment and maximising the benefits of Brexit. From food security and supporting our farmers to water quality and economic growth for our rural communities, there is much to do, and the Government are determined to deliver.
Jessica Morden
Valiant food banks serving Newport East tell me that they will really struggle to stay open this winter with rising energy, fuel and insurance costs and people finding it more difficult to donate to them. They provide a vital service that, sadly, we will need more than ever before, so what immediate steps will the Government take to help them stay open this winter?
Mr Jayawardena
I encourage the hon. Lady to wait to hear the Prime Minister later today.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Mr Jayawardena
My hon. Friend is, of course, right. I also encourage him to wait to hear what the Prime Minister says later today. It is very, very important to ensure we continue to be able to produce some of the best food in the world and the Government are committed to doing that.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Double)
Listening to those on the Labour Benches, one would think that between 1997 and 2010 there was no sewage discharge from our system. The fact is that there was, but it is only because of the measures that this Government have taken to put monitoring in place that we are aware of the problem, and we are now the first Government ever to take action to solve this problem.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mark Spencer)
I pay tribute to Rob and Sally. Staffordshire farmers are second only to Nottinghamshire farmers in their delivery for UK food production.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Mr Jayawardena
We have long set out that we have no plans to change our animal welfare, food safety or environmental standards, and that remains the case.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
In my tourist town of Eastbourne, the sea is our greatest asset. Meeting with the Environment Agency just a week or two ago, water quality was deemed to be good, yet social media discharges by local Liberal Democrats would have people believe that it is dangerous to swim. Does my hon. Friend agree that the raft of measures we are bringing in through the Environment Act 2021 will not only improve the quality of the water, but that responsible, balanced and honest accounting is important, too?
Steve Double
My hon. Friend is a strong champion for her constituency of Eastbourne and the businesses there. She is absolutely right. This is the first Government ever to take the action we are taking to address this long-standing issue that has been going on for many, many generations. She is absolutely right that the misinformation put out by some Opposition parties is shameless scaremongering.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Mr Jayawardena
I want to see top-quality agricultural land being used to grow food.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Agriculture Act 2020 states that the Secretary of State has to come before Parliament every three years to report on the UK’s food security. Will he do so this autumn?
Mr Jayawardena
Having been in the role just over 24 hours, I will review all my duties in due course.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Environment Agency is a key player in tackling sewage discharges, yet it has seen its funding halved over the past 10 years. What is the Minister doing to reinstate the essential funding for the Environment Agency?
Steve Double
I do not recognise the figures that the hon. Lady quotes. In this spending review, the DEFRA budget increased by more than £4 billion, and the Environment Agency is being more active than ever before in enforcing the regulations on our water quality.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I want to see clean water in the Ladybrook, the Micker brook and all the streams that feed into the great River Mersey. United Utilities is responsible for our waste water and sewage discharges. It is consulting on its plan to spend up to £18 billion on the water quality and discharges in our area. I am asking my Cheadle constituency to join that consultation. Will the Minister join me in encouraging everybody to play their part and make their voices heard?
Steve Double
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that addressing that long-standing issue will be a combined effort with everyone working together. It is really important that everyone engages in ensuring that we get the right solutions in every situation to address the problem and reduce the amount of sewage being discharged as quickly as possible.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Diolch, Mr Speaker. The demand for pet food banks is more than doubling in parts of the UK as owners have to make heartbreaking decisions thanks to the cost of living crisis. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), said, charities are bracing themselves for an increase in the number of abandoned animals, but it does not have to be this way. What assurances can the Minister give us about targeted financial support for those charities through a really difficult winter?
Steve Double
I am sure that we would all agree that owning a pet brings additional responsibilities. Everyone should consider those, including the costs, before deciding whether to take on that responsibility. The Government have already introduced £37 billion-worth of support to help households, targeting that at those most in need. The Prime Minister will announce further measures later today.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place, as well as the news from the Environment Agency on Wednesday that there will now be a regulatory investigation into Walleys Quarry in my constituency. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for his help over the summer. Will the new Secretary of State visit Newcastle-under-Lyme, and does he agree that now that we have two investigations—regulatory and criminal—into Walleys Quarry Ltd, it is imperative that those are concluded as soon as possible so that my constituents get justice and everyone gets to see some accountability?
Steve Double
I am very aware of the issue that my hon. Friend is raising, and I am pleased that we are making progress with the Environment Agency on enforcement action. I am very happy to meet him to ensure that we continue to do all we can, and if appropriate, to visit the site with him.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
Six bishops and hundreds of clergy have Ukrainian evacuees living with them, and the Church of England is using vacant vicarages in a number of places. Churches are also actively involved in recruiting new hosts where needed.
Greg Smith
Over the summer, I was delighted to meet Reverend Peter Godden at St Dunstan’s church in Monks Risborough—England’s oldest recorded parish—to hear at first hand about some of the incredible work that the church and wider deanery is doing to support 130 Ukrainian refugees who have been welcomed to the wider Princes Risborough area in my constituency, such as English lessons, a conversation café and a children’s summer week. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking all our churches for the work they are doing to support our Ukrainian friends? What more can the Church of England do to support churches such as St Dunstan’s in their work?
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the interest that he takes in and the support that he gives to his local churches. It is wonderful to hear of the practical compassion in action of St Dunstan’s in Monks Risborough and St Mary’s in Princes Risborough. I know that those churches are making a big difference to the lives of Ukrainian refugees. I assure him that the Church is actively seeking new hosts where some families want to pass on that responsibility and it will keep on with this important work.
Sir Desmond Swayne
As we approach the six-month point, what action can the Church take to encourage members of their congregations to step forward—and the congregations themselves to support them—where some initial sponsorships are not renewed?
Andrew Selous
My right hon. Friend asks a typically pertinent question. I reassure him that many dioceses are developing schemes to rematch sponsors and Ukrainian refugees as the initial six-month placements draw to an end. We are also funding other support programmes for Ukrainians, for which I am extremely grateful. We must all guard against compassion fatigue.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my parish church in Huddersfield is playing a very good role in helping Ukrainian refugees, but in a sense the honeymoon period is over? People from Ukraine in my constituency told me last week that they need help with permanent housing, with education and with the translation of their qualifications into English qualifications. They also very much need to use their high skills to help the community.
Andrew Selous
I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has told the House. I know that he takes a supportive interest in what his local churches do in this important area. He is right in everything he says. The Government will play their part, and I can assure him that the Church will absolutely continue to be there at a national and local level to do everything that is needed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his deep interest in these matters, which is much appreciated. Following on from what other hon. Members have said about the integration of Ukrainian refugees, has consideration been given to allowing the use of parish halls free of charge for English lessons and as community hubs for small pockets of rural Ukrainians to meet?
Andrew Selous
The hon. Gentleman makes typically sensible suggestions. He has put them on the record, and I know that the Church will do everything possible nationally and locally. He has made good suggestions.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Andrew Selous
I thank my right hon. Friend for her sustained and long-term interest in freedom of religion and belief for Christians and people of all faiths around the world. At the Lambeth conference, the Bishop of Chelmsford, herself a Christian refugee from Iran, spoke about the need to challenge some of the darker elements of faith leaders who condone persecution.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
In the light of the conclusions of the independent review assessing the implementation of the Bishop of Truro’s report on supporting persecuted Christians around the world, what improvements would the Church like to see in relation to the envoy for freedom of religion or belief? My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) has done a wonderful job, but we want to see the post established on a permanent basis, with greater capacity to engage across Government and resources to match.
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising an extremely important point. Our hon. Friend the faith envoy, who is in the Chamber, does a fantastic job. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Church remains completely committed to the full implementation of the Truro review, especially recommendation 6, which is to make the envoy a permanent position with “appropriate resources and authority” to work across Government.
Mr Speaker
Now that the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) has been named, I think we ought to bring her in.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for her question and my hon. Friend the Second Church Estates Commissioner for his answer. The recent independent review of progress on Truro has confirmed that there is more to be done before FORB becomes firmly embedded in the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. One area that was highlighted is the need for better engagement with stakeholders, among which the Church is key. Would the Second Church Estates Commissioner be willing to join me to discuss the matter at a meeting with an FCDO Minister, which has been agreed?
Andrew Selous
I should be delighted, and I would like to bring our bishops who lead in the area and senior officials from Church House to that important meeting.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester)
The Speaker’s Committee has no plans to make an assessment of the potential effect of the Elections Act on the impartiality of the Electoral Commission. The commission itself has raised concerns about the potential challenge to its impartiality from the introduction of a strategy and policy statement by which the Government can guide its work. Its view is that that is inconsistent with the role that an independent electoral commission plays in a democratic system. The commission is currently considering the consultation on the draft statement and will publish its response in due course.
Allan Dorans
The last Prime Minister and the Government attacked the impartiality of the Electoral Commission after the Downing Street flat refurbishment was found in breach of donation declaration rules and a fine was subsequently imposed. That was followed by leading Tory Members calling for the abolition of the Electoral Commission or, sinisterly, for its direction to be controlled via the Elections Act strategy and policy statement. Does the representative of the Speaker’s Committee agree that the new Prime Minister should commit to protecting the independence of the Electoral Commission and should remove the specific aspects of Government overreach in the Elections Act?
Christian Matheson
As I said in my previous answer, the Speaker’s Committee has made no assessment on this particular matter. Any changes to the Elections Act will be a matter for the House, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will pursue those avenues in other areas of its business.
Owen Thompson
The road down which the UK has been travelling is increasingly concerning. It involves removing our human rights, threatening the removal of the European Court of Human Rights, and then gutting the impartiality and powers of the Electoral Commission in the Elections Act 2022 by Government diktat and the rejection of all Opposition amendments. This follows on from suggestions that no new independent ethics adviser will be appointed under the new Prime Minister, which would further diminish independent investigation. Given those facts, does the representative of the Speaker’s Committee agree with all but one of the board members that the Elections Act seriously undermines the independence of the Electoral Commission?
Christian Matheson
Let me repeat the statement that the Electoral Commission itself has issued: it believes that the introduction of a strategy and policy statement would be inconsistent with the role of an independent Electoral Commission. We are currently engaged in consultation on the Government’s draft strategy and policy statement. The Commission will continue to act in an independent and impartial way in order to help maintain public confidence in elections throughout the UK.
Martyn Day
The Electoral Commission manages elections and plays a vital role in maintaining fairness, trust and public confidence in our democratic processes, and its independence of any party or Government is therefore essential. Does the hon. Member agree that one way of helping to defend that independence would be to ensure that in future the Speaker’s Committee never has a Government majority, and would he be willing to raise that with the Speaker of the House of Commons?
Christian Matheson
The hon. Gentleman himself has raised it with you, Mr Speaker, and I believe that the composition of the Committee is a matter for you. Its composition changed recently because of the reallocation of responsibilities from one Government Department to another, and therefore the chairmanship of the relevant Select Committee—the previous Chair was ex officio—has changed: the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) has been replaced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). I believe that you, Mr Speaker, will be reviewing the position regularly.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
This has been a deeply troubling time for the Bell family, and I want to pass on my heartfelt apologies for what has happened. I am pleased that the issue has been resolved and the lessons learned process begins next month, and I know that the vicar of Holy Trinity Wingate has strongly supported the family during this difficult time.
Grahame Morris
May I place on record my thanks to the hon. Member for his assistance with this matter during the recess?
I can report to the House that Thomas Bell’s coffin has been located, and that his late wife Hilda was buried with him after a heartbreaking eight-week delay. Appallingly, however, for 17 years the family—who were my constituents, living in Easington—unknowingly attended the wrong grave, and in the process of locating Mr Bell’s coffin several other errors were identified. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to improve burial records, with digital copies, introduce a new process for marking plots after burial, and draw up rules for the orderly organisation of plots in churchyards?
Andrew Selous
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: record-keeping is incredibly important. The Parochial Registers and Records Measure 1978 clearly states that records should be kept in fireproof places, and the hon. Gentleman’s point about digital copies was also well made. The lessons learned inquiry will focus on best practice for all parishes. Let me add, on a personal note, that I was very pleased that Mrs Bell’s great-grandchild was baptised in the church last weekend.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester)
The Speaker’s Committee has not made an assessment of the potential effect of the Elections Act on the matters the hon. Member refers to in her question. The Commission’s view is that the Elections Act makes limited changes to the regulation of political party donations and finances and campaign spending. The requirement for new political parties to set out assets or debts when registering will give voters some greater transparency. Changes relating to third-party campaigners will bring limited additional transparency while increasing the complexity of the law. The digital imprint requirement will increase the transparency of campaign spending. The changes to the administration and conduct of elections will enhance the integrity of the electoral process. The Commission’s view is that the voter ID requirement addresses a vulnerability of polling station voting in Great Britain to fraud, but it has emphasised that voting must remain accessible for those who do not already have appropriate ID.
Marion Fellows
According to openDemocracy, between 2010 and 2019 the Tory party received £3.5 million from Russian-linked donors, yet instead of countering undue influence from oligarchs or shady think-tanks, the Elections Act weakens rules on donations from overseas, making it easier to pay for influence. The new report by the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Research has set out a simple remedy: cap all political donations to a level appropriate to the poorest. Will the representative of the Speaker’s Committee confirm whether a donation cap has been considered?
Christian Matheson
The cap has not been considered in the Speaker’s Committee or discussed by the Speaker’s Committee and the Electoral Commission. The Commission says that it is committed to ensuring that political funding is transparent and to preventing unlawful foreign money from entering UK politics. It continues to recommend changes to the law to ensure that voters can have greater confidence in political finance in the UK. This includes recommendations for new duties on parties for enhanced due diligence and risk assessment of donations and changes to the law to ensure that companies have made enough money in the UK to fund any donations.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Christian Matheson
The Speaker’s Committee has not made any such assessment. However, the change in ministerial responsibility has had an impact on the Committee in a number of ways. As I mentioned in a previous answer, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) has been replaced as an ex officio member of the Committee by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). The Commission reports that it will continue to work closely with the team of civil servants, which has moved Departments. It has also had several meetings with responsible Ministers at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in particular to discuss the implementation of the Elections Act.
Patricia Gibson
The governance of elections is of course a very important matter, and it was rather bizarrely removed from the portfolio of the Cabinet Office by the previous Prime Minister and entrusted to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Can the representative of the Speaker’s Committee provide any clarity on whether that will continue, and what consideration has he given to the merits of transferring the responsibility back to the Cabinet Office?
Christian Matheson
I thank the hon. Lady for that question, but the Committee will simply respond to however the Government organise themselves. It is a matter for the Government and the Prime Minister to allocate different responsibilities among different parties, and the Speaker’s Committee will respond accordingly.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
Following the Church’s “Coming Home” report on meeting housing need, the Church is looking to establish a new national housing association and to make use of Church-owned land to develop more affordable homes where we are able to, along with pod homes to house vulnerable people temporarily.
Caroline Ansell
Understandably, there were mixed feelings when the original St Elizabeth’s church in Eastbourne’s old town had to be demolished, but the church community moved next door and is thriving. Demolition created a significant site in a prime location in a town where housing development opportunities are few and far between. May I ask my hon. Friend what progress has been made in order to realise the potential on the site?
Andrew Selous
St Elizabeth’s Eastbourne was due for demolition in 2019 because the building was unsafe, and I am pleased that the congregation are thriving in their new location. We are now looking for a new home for the Hans Feibusch murals from the crypt, which I have to say, from the photographs I have seen of them, are very splendid. We are working with the local council, developers and the local community to find an appropriate housing scheme for this site.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Andrew Selous
The Church of England strongly encourages parishes and cathedrals to ensure access for all, wherever possible. On a personal note, I am grateful to the parish church where I grew up for providing ramps to get my mother in and out of the church in her wheelchair. The public worship of Jesus should always be accessible to as many people as possible.
Dr Johnson
The Holy Trinity or West Allington church is beautiful and historic, but access to it is quite poor. The lovely grass slope going up to the church means that, in winter and in poor, wet weather, the church is inaccessible to the elderly and those with disabilities, and some of my constituents have missed family funerals as a result. What can the Church Commissioners do to help?
Andrew Selous
It is typical of my hon. Friend’s conscientiousness that she has visited Holy Trinity, Allington to help get these much-needed improvements. If she contacts the archdeacon of Boston, the archdeacon will work with her and the parish, with the assistance of the church buildings department, to improve their bid for the necessary funds to help revitalise the church as a resource for the whole community. As she says, it is appalling that people have not been able to attend family funerals.
Business of the House
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the new Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
Mr Speaker
I welcome the new Leader of the House to her position at the Dispatch Box.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I paid tribute to my predecessor yesterday but, before I announce the business, I would like to place on record my sadness and my thanks for the life and service of Nick Munting MBE, who gave this House 35 years’ service.
The business for the week commencing 12 September will include:
Monday 12 September—Second Reading of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 13 September—Remaining stages of the Public Order Bill.
Wednesday 14 September—Remaining stages of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, followed by a motion relating to the Procedure Committee’s first report of 2022-23 on proxy voting and the presence of babies in the Chamber and Westminster Hall.
Thursday 15 September—Debate on a motion on NHS dentistry, followed by a general debate on the national food strategy and food security. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 16 September—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 19 September includes:
Monday 19 September—Remaining stages of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business, and I join her tribute to the former member of staff.
It is a pleasure to welcome the Leader of the House. As she dives into her new job, I hope it is not too cheesy to wish her all the best in making a splash. I also thank the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) for his service. The Leader of the House’s brief is unique in that it requires cross-party co-operation on a number of matters, and I look forward to working with the Leader of the House, as I looked forward to working with her predecessor.
The well-respected former Cabinet Secretary, Lord O’Donnell, said, “it is always best to look at the reasons why your predecessor fell and fix them.” I have been calling for the Government to bring forward the Standards Committee’s recommendations on strengthening the code of conduct for MPs for months. It is incredibly disappointing to see that it is missing from the business again. Will the Leader of the House please pass on Lord O’Donnell’s wise words to the Prime Minister and bring forward those recommendations urgently?
I pay tribute to my good and hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and his Committee for their excellent work, which must not go to waste. Labour has long called for transparency on Members’ interests and for a ban on paid consultancy work. Where Labour wants to act, the Tories sit on their hands. Labour would go even further by establishing an integrity and ethics commission that would sanction Ministers who breach the rules, but the Prime Minister has refused to say whether she will even appoint a new ethics adviser after the last two resigned in despair. There is clearly a need for stronger enforcement of the rules across Parliament and across Government. Will the Leader of the House tell me when the much-needed new ethics adviser will be announced?
The Government’s legislative agenda is in disarray. Without going all Craig David, let us look at their first few days. On Monday, the data Bill was pulled. It fell well short on ambition, but it was supposed to unlock growth and business opportunities. Does the new Culture Secretary support the Bill? If so, when will it be rescheduled? Or are the Government planning to drop it completely? We need clarity on which Bills from the Queen’s Speech of just four months ago the Government will be proceeding with. Are they dropping any other legislation that we should know about? If they are, may I suggest that the Leader of the House uses the space for the Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), which would give real protection and succour to victims of future public disasters and their families? It would be a lasting legacy for the Hillsborough families, who have suffered so much.
On Tuesday, the scrutiny session on the National Security Bill was cancelled when the latest Minister—[Interruption.] Well, I don’t know what happened. There have been four Ministers over the course of that Bill. Why could the Government not get anyone to turn up? Our Labour Back Benchers did. The zombie Government continue. Can the Leader of the House give us assurances that business on national security, or indeed anything else, will not be delayed again because Ministers cannot be bothered to turn up?
On Wednesday, whatever Craig David was up to, the Leader of the House announced that the Prime Minister would swerve scrutiny by announcing policy today in a general debate rather than making herself properly accountable by giving a ministerial statement. I see instead that there is to be a written ministerial statement, but it has not yet been published. Members cannot be expected to properly scrutinise significant policy when we have not seen it. When will it be published? Either way, this is not the same as bringing forward a policy, legislation and an implementation plan, and there is nothing in the Leader of the House’s statement. The energy price cap increases in less than a month, and without the legislation families will suffer. It is days away that the bills go up, so when are we going to do this?
So, the Government dropped a Bill on Monday, did not turn up on Tuesday, did something else on Wednesday and here they are planless on Thursday. Labour has been calling for action on energy bills for months. We could have passed legislation to freeze the energy price cap by now. Throughout the leadership campaign the Prime Minister consistently said she is against windfall taxes. What is it about this former Shell employee, the new Prime Minister, that means she is so determined to protect the £170 billion of excess oil and gas profits? She must now choose whose side she is on. Labour’s plan, backed by the country, is fully funded by a windfall tax on oil and gas companies. The Prime Minister is making working people pay. We have a new Prime Minister but the same story. Only Labour can tackle the Tory cost of living crisis, get money back into people’s pockets and deliver a fresh start for Britain.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind and witty remarks on my appointment, although I have to disappoint her, because I am afraid there is nothing wet about me.
I am deeply honoured to have this role at a time when we have to restore trust in this place and in our politics, and that trust has to be earned through our conduct and our care, but also our policies. That is why—in answer to the hon. Lady’s question about energy costs—this Prime Minister believes in keeping our promises and delivering certainty for both households and people, and businesses and investors in this country.
I was buoyed up to hear the hon. Lady want to talk about the Prime Minister’s predecessor. I am taking that as an encouraging sign that she thinks the current Prime Minister is rather good. However, the hon. Lady does raise important issues about the code of conduct and the Prime Minister’s ethics adviser. I have asked for an early meeting with the Chairman of the Standards Committee—
Penny Mordaunt
We can debate over time, but I am pretty quick off the mark. The ethics adviser is a matter for the Prime Minister. She has an enormous in-tray to get through, but I know that she has a spectacular work rate and will get to these issues swiftly. I am keen to talk to the Chairman of the Committee, but I understand the importance of bringing these things forward swiftly and undertake to do so.
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind advice on House business. We will be announcing business in the usual way. On today’s debate, I think it is incredibly important that we will have debate time today on this most pressing issue. Members of this House will have been speaking to their constituents and businesses over the summer, and will want to get on record their views about what can happen. I just point out the care that the Prime Minister has taken to be able to give Members of this House information at the earliest possible occasion but not to breach the rules, as Mr Speaker would want—he would want this House to know first. [Interruption.] Hon. Members cannot have their cake and eat it. They cannot ask for information not to be disclosed prior to a debate and then criticise us for exactly that. Nick Robinson said on the “Today” programme this morning that he did not have the details of this. A written ministerial statement has been tabled and will be published shortly, in plenty of time for the debate this afternoon. As I said yesterday, that will not be the only occasion when Members will be able to comment on the measures being brought forward by this Government.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to her position. It was an honour to serve with her in the Ministry of Defence, and I know she will apply the same due diligence to this role.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are committed to investing in new hospitals around the country. Leeds has an ambitious plan for a new general infirmary and children’s hospital, which will also have a new innovation hub, bringing £11.5 billion to the local economy. May we have a debate in Government time about the progress that project is making, so that I can sell the merits of the Leeds bid to her and our colleagues in government?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work he has done to progress that capital build. I encourage him to talk to the new Health Secretary—I am sure he has already written to her on the matter. He is very good at representing his constituents and will know all the means by which he can secure a debate on the Floor of the House on this important matter for them.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the Leader of the House to her new position and look forward to working with her and the shadow Leader of the House. I pay tribute to my energetic and witty predecessor, who enlivened many a session in this place over many years.
I welcome the news of the Government’s general debate on energy costs today, where the Prime Minister will finally detail the support to be offered to our many constituents who are struggling at this time. I believe she will also detail exactly what the Government plan to do about fracking and increasing oil and gas extraction, while remaining committed to their manifesto commitment to net zero by 2050.
Exciting times, eh, Mr Speaker? We have an exciting new Cabinet packed with exciting new talents: hard-line Brexiters, climate change sceptics and free marketers. We have a new Justice Secretary infamous for being prepared to break international law in a “limited and specific way”, and a Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy whose desk apparently does not boast a computer and who is on record as being a climate change denier. Obviously, they are raring to go and get stuck in—keen as mustard, like kids in their first week at school. And there are more announcements to come. Who knows what fresh delights await us?
I have a couple of questions, Mr Speaker. First, can the right hon. Lady confirm whether the newspaper reports are correct and the so-called Bill of Rights is, to the relief of so many, finally being booted up into the Back Benches with the former Justice Secretary—its biggest fan—or whether it is only simmering on the Government’s back burner until the new PM decides once again that just what the long-suffering people of these isles really need is politicians fiddling around with basic human rights that do not need to be fiddled around with?
Finally, other newspaper reports caused quite a stir in Scotland over the weekend by stating that the Government plan to introduce a referendum Bill setting out the rules under which they will permit the Scottish people a choice in their future again. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that is their intention? I remind her that if the arbitrary threshold suggested had been applied to the Conservative leadership election, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) would not be Prime Minister, and that under it both the campaign to leave the EU and the Conservatives’ 2019 election bid would have fallen well short in England, let alone in Scotland. Clearly the Government have not learned anything from the last time Scots were cheated out of a result in a referendum in—[Interruption.] In 1979. The good news for us is that such desperate attempts to rig our independence referendum expose the desperation in Unionist ranks. They know that when we hold that referendum, we are going to win it.
Mr Speaker
I gently say—everybody is doing it, but it is a new day—that the limit is two minutes and we were almost at three there.
Penny Mordaunt
I have made a schoolgirl error, I am afraid, because in my diligent preparation for these questions, I expected some questions relating to things that matter to the people of Scotland. Never mind—I hope for some in the coming weeks.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not feel able to celebrate the diversity of the new Cabinet. Despite her criticism of certain Members, the one thing that all members of the Cabinet believe in is holding to the results of referendums, which is an encouraging thing and something that I would recommend to her. We remain committed to our manifesto, and future business will be announced in the usual way.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to her position, which I am sure she will enjoy, and I am sure she will serve with great distinction.
Global awareness day of aortic dissection is on 19 September this year. Aortic dissection is a terrible and all too often preventable condition if it is diagnosed, and it has affected my family. It affects more than 2,000 families whose loved ones die every year in this country. Please will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time to mark this date and also ask my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary what her Department will do to educate health professionals so that aortic dissections are not misdiagnosed, including working closely with the Aortic Dissection Charitable Trust?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and commend the work that she has done in the wake of a terrible tragedy to spare other families what she has had to suffer. I will bring this matter to the attention of the new Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister. Some encouraging work has been done by the Royal Colleges of Radiologists and Emergency Medicine to help spot and diagnose this condition in emergency departments and I thank her again for her work.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I welcome the new Leader of the House to her place and look forward to working with her in the coming weeks and months. It is refreshing to see that the Deputy Leader of the House is still in his place.
May I also apologise, Mr Speaker, for being slightly late? I have just been meeting a delegation of United States congressmen and women.
We have an extensive queue of debate applications waiting for Chamber time—quite a long list—but we are very much still open for business particularly for applications that are seeking time for debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so we would welcome such applications. Some Members are already particularly helpful in this respect—some might say a little too helpful! But we are very much open for business and looking forward to those applications.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The work of the Backbench Business Committee is absolutely critical to enable Members to bring forward issues of concern to them. He will know from our conversation yesterday that I am looking at giving him early assurance of time both on the Floor of the House and in Westminster Hall and I will undertake to do that as swiftly as possible.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
May I press the Leader of the House a little bit on the energy debate, which is starting in probably less than an hour’s time? I asked her yesterday about what information we would have. The written ministerial statement has not yet been laid; I hope that that will happen shortly. Furthermore, it is usual with a statement that, immediately the Minister making the statement sits down, a hard copy of that statement is distributed to Members. Can I have her assurance that, at the minimum, as soon as the Prime Minister has concluded her speech opening the debate, a hard copy of that speech will be circulated to MPs? It is a very significant announcement. We are expecting tens of billions of pounds, and Members need at least that level of detail to be able to debate it properly in the three-hour debate today.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this question both today and yesterday. I am very keen that Members of this House are given all the information they need to be able to fully participate in debates and to scrutinise Government policy. My understanding is that, because it is a general debate, that convention does not apply. However, we have raised this issue with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and that is the reason why a WMS will be tabled imminently, in good time for the debate this afternoon, and that will contain all the information that colleagues need.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Leader of the House for her positive response yesterday to my point of order. Will the Government consider having a debate on the private rented sector? It is one of the other key pressures on the cost of living crisis. I am pleased that the Government are—hopefully—about to deal with the energy crisis, but unless we deal with spiralling rents and ongoing evictions, people will suffer this winter. Will the Government bring forward a debate on this matter in Government time?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I would be happy to raise that matter with the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman will know from the Prime Minister’s statement that the cost of living and related issues are a priority for this Government, and I will certainly take that up with the relevant Department.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I apologise for being slightly late because I had to hobble here as the result of a sprained ankle.
I hugely congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new post. I speak from experience when I say that it is the most brilliant job, and I am sure she will serve with great distinction. I also say a huge thank you to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). He was brilliant and funny as the Scottish Nationalists’ spokesman all the way through, and I wish his successor much luck, Can my right hon. Friend assure us that she will give them no possibility of doing anything to tear apart our great United Kingdom while she remains Leader of the House?
Penny Mordaunt
I hope that is my reputation. On the Government side of the House, we respect the results of referendums.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Last week in my constituency I visited an Afghan family who have been in a hostel for more than 10 months. My constituent has been prevented from earning a living and providing for their family. They have progressed with help from the health service in the form of antidepressants. What they need is the ability to work and to live in a home rather than two rooms. They do not wish to remain dependent on the state and at its mercy. Will the Leader of the House urge the new Home Secretary to make a statement on the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue and I am happy to raise it with the Home Secretary. Work has been going on in other Departments to remove barriers and enable people to get into work—for example, in the NHS—once their paperwork is sorted, and to see how Jobcentre Plus can assist people. All ideas from Members are always gratefully received.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I congratulate my fellow Hampshire MP on her new role. She will be aware that junction 9 of the M3 is a key piece of road infrastructure in our part of the world, from the docks in Southampton to the rest of the country. It has been held up while we make new plans in preparation—or not—for smart motorways. The new Prime Minister has been clear about her opinion that smart motorways will not be proceeded with. Should National Highways now proceed—as it had planned to do—with the junction outside the all-running motorway plan?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Hampshire colleague for his kind remarks. He will know that the Department for Transport has been reviewing the progress of that work, and it is right that we look at the genuine concerns that have been raised about that new technology. The Department will continue its plan as outlined, but I will raise the matter on his behalf with the new Secretary of State, because clearly his constituents and local business want some certainty on the timeframe.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Park home residents in Bath face soaring bills because their pitch fees are linked to the retail price index rather than the lower consumer price index. The previous Government committed to changing pitch fees in England if parliamentary time allowed. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that is still the case?
Penny Mordaunt
I will certainly raise the issue with the relevant Department and ask it to contact the hon. Lady. I take it that she has raised this issue with it before, and clearly she has a number of means to secure a debate. If she has any difficulty in getting an answer to her question, I will be happy to assist.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new job. She follows in illustrious footsteps: Sir Robert Walpole, both the Pitts—Elder and Younger—Disraeli, Gladstone and Churchill. I want to bring up something to ask for her help about a historic appointment in Somerset. Mohammed Saddiq will soon take up an official role that was created by Henry VIII. He will get to wear fancy dress, represent our ancient county and welcome visiting dignitaries. However, his day job is director of Wessex Water, a company guilty of pumping thousands of gallons of human filth into my rivers and across the levels. Last year he received £422,000, including a bonus, for what was actually called “protecting the environment”. Somerset needs to be consulted about such appointments, and so does the rest of the country. We are not asked about them. Can we please have a debate in Government time on senior appointments so that MPs can have input into them across the United Kingdom?
Penny Mordaunt
On the issue of storm overflows, my hon. Friend will know that we are the first Government to have introduced legislation to reduce such discharges. He will fully understand the reason why they are done; the consequences of not doing them would be appalling for our constituents. Critically, since 2016, when only 5% of such overflows were monitored, monitoring is now at 90% and next year it will be 100%. That is not the solution, but it is incredibly helpful to the public. I think that background is helpful in the case he raises. Clearly, he will be as concerned as all of us in this House to get those matters resolved swiftly. Finally, I point out that last year we fined water companies £100 million for not following their obligations.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the right hon. Lady to her new job, not least because she got to be leader after all; historically, the leader of the Government was the Leader of the House in the House of Commons, as was just pointed out. Her job is really important in terms of, as she has said, restoring the reputation of this House. Much of that started to fall apart with the Owen Paterson debacle last November. I hope we can put that behind us—although she voted, of course, for the wrecking amendment at the time—and work together to try to bring forward the new code of conduct as soon as possible. It is simpler, it tightens up the rules and it provides fairness for all Members. There should not be a higher standard for us than for anybody else in public life, but there should be standards in public life. I hope she will explain to us why she has pulled the debate that was meant to bring forward the new code of conduct next Wednesday.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and look forward to our first meeting, whichever one of us initiated it. I do take these matters very seriously—I hope that is my reputation—and I believe strongly that in this role, as well as serving my Government, I also serve this House. I understand the full importance of restoring trust and confidence in our politics. I want to have a conversation with him, but he will already know that we are very sympathetic to the measures in his report, and I am not looking to delay those matters; I want to fully understand them and get the background from him. I hope he will take that as positive.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I too warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to her new role. I thank Mr Speaker for agreeing yesterday to my request to hoist the Brazilian flag in New Palace Yard, because yesterday marked an important day in the Brazilian national calendar. I also thank him for receiving the Brazilian ambassador, Mr Fred Arruda. This is a moment of great pride for all Brazilians worldwide, but also for the large number of Brazilians who work on our estate. Will my right hon. Friend join me in celebrating yesterday’s anniversary of Brazilian independence, in which Britain played a significant part 200 years ago, as we look forward to growing a strong strategic and trade relationship between our two great countries?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and for giving me the opportunity to echo the statement that he has made. I suggest that he might wish to secure an Adjournment debate on this topic, and I thank him for all he is doing to strengthen our ties with Brazil.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Supported businesses such as Highland BlindCraft in Inverness rely on transitional support grants to help them to employ a wide range of people with disabilities and to help them to become valued members of our workforce. The grants are due to end in April. There has been no word from the Government about their replacement or any information about what is happening, and this is a critical time for these businesses in trying to plan. May we have a statement on when the situation will be rectified and when detail on the grants will be given?
Penny Mordaunt
I would be very happy to raise that specific issue with the relevant Secretary of State. One of our achievements has been to halve the disability employment gap. This continues to be of huge importance to the Government, and we want to do everything we can to enable that employment and others to continue.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I welcome the Leader of the House to her new role and congratulate her. When will we see leasehold reform on the Order Paper? This is a difficult, technical issue. We need to get it right, we need time to debate it, and there are people suffering now as a result of abusive practices that need to be tackled. I do hope that we will see it on the Order Paper soon.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this important point. I will take it up with the relevant Department and business will be announced in the usual way. I would also encourage her to use all the means that she will be very aware of to secure a debate on the issue, but I shall certainly raise it with the Department.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Several small to medium-sized businesses in Battersea have told me how much they are struggling with the cost of living crisis. Energy bills are soaring and business costs are rising, and then there are the supply chain and staffing issues as a consequence of Brexit. These small businesses are vital to our local economy and they need help now, so the Government must come forward with a plan of support that includes a contingency fund for these businesses. We need to see a cut in business rates and the energy price cap implemented sooner rather than later. May we have a statement outlining the Government plan to support small and medium-sized businesses?
Penny Mordaunt
That is the reason why we have given time for a general debate this afternoon. Many Members will have ideas about what support is needed and they will have the opportunity to raise them later today. We have moved Government business around to allow that to happen, and to allow measures to help the hon. Lady’s businesses to be brought forward.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
May I take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new position? The Prime Minister yesterday agreed with the Father of the House that local authorities should be allowed by planning law to protect what matters most of them. I believe that should apply as much to Doncaster Sheffield airport as it does to the green belt. The land that our airport sits on has planning consent for use as an airport. Does the Leader of the House agree that the owners, Peel Holdings, should not be able to close our airport and use the land for anything else?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is an assiduous campaigner on this issue, and I know that he has raised it many times. There are commercial decisions, which sit with the owners, about what their plans are, but I know that he is doing everything within his power to ensure a good outcome for his local constituents, and I am at his disposal if there is anything I can do to assist him in that.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
In the absence of today’s cancelled debate, will the Leader of the House speak to her colleagues in the Home Office about restoring the Home Office hub that we previously had in Portcullis House? The biggest thief of time in my office is when caseworkers have to listen to a message on the helpline saying that there are more than five people waiting ahead of them. The Home Office has written to tell us that it will have a series of regional walk-in initiatives. Can she perhaps explain to the Home Office that the nearest one to my constituency is in Aberdeen, and that it will only be a walk-in service when my caseworkers can walk on water? They do brilliant things, but I fear that is still a little bit beyond them.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. My office has already had some discussions with the Home Office about what service it can provide to hon. Members, which is vital. Rather than being a burden on it, Members of Parliament can be of great assistance in getting cases resolved, so I will happily do that.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The Arctic ocean is heating four times faster than any other ocean in the world. The sea ice is melting and there is a whole range of other issues. The Arctic Council is not operating, and a whole series of issues is pending with regard to the Arctic, such as minerals and fisheries. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has promised a new Arctic policy document imminently—it says that it has been preparing it for quite a long time. Will my right hon. Friend, who I warmly welcome to her new post, find time for a Government debate on British relations with the Arctic, which could perhaps coincide with the launch of that new document?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, which has always been important, but is even more pressing now because of what is happening with Russia. I will bring it up with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I encourage him—although I know he needs no encouragement—to do all he can to secure time on the Floor of the House to debate that important issue.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the appointment of the Leader of the House. I particularly look forward to the exchanges that I am sure we will have in the Procedure Committee, particularly on proxy voting, in the coming weeks.
At the weekend, a group of cyclists from my constituency and the constituency of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) were doing a fundraiser for Prostate Cymru, travelling from Wales to Portugal. When they arrived at customs in Santander, their bikes were seized and they were asked to pay in excess of €10,000 to release the bikes for the fundraising effort. Clearly, that has had a huge impact on the fundraising; the cyclists ended up paying €8,500 to release the bikes, which the whole House will agree is appalling.
It appears that it was to do with a post-Brexit form linked to importers trying to sell goods in Spain, but clearly this was a cycling fundraising event. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could make representations to the Foreign Secretary about providing more support to charities such as Prostate Cymru about what forms need to be completed, and about working with the Spanish Government to ensure that does not happen again to much-needed funds for charities.
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear of that. There is no reason why they should have had that difficulty—it is outrageous. I take this opportunity to remind hon. Members about the excellent consular service that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office runs. I had an incident where a constituent was in real danger. Through the consular service, within half an hour of me making that initial call, the local police force in the United States was on that individual’s doorstep. I encourage people to use that facility, and I will do all I can to help to resolve and get compensation for the group of cyclists the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new position; I know that she will do a fantastic job.
Sadly, I was not shocked by Sandwell Council’s latest attempt to threaten and silence residents who are being let down by the Labour-run council. Residents who complain about their child’s special educational needs and disabilities travel service now face their transport provision being removed for good. The council’s latest terms and conditions reads:
“Please don’t use social media to make a complaint as it may result in your child’s transport being suspended or removed permanently.”
That is after the scandal around those contracts being awarded on the basis of friendships. We have really hit a new low. Can the Leader of the House advise me on whether we can have a debate on Sandwell Council’s ongoing SEND provision?
Penny Mordaunt
That is very shocking and sad to hear. It is absolutely the case that local authorities have a statutory duty to provide free home-to-school transport for eligible children of compulsory school age, and it would not be lawful for a local authority to withdraw transport from an eligible child on the grounds that a parent had complained—that is outrageous. My hon. Friend will know how to secure a debate, but I will raise the issue on her behalf with the relevant Department. It is a shocking indictment of that council.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the new Leader of the House. I am personally very pleased for her and I wish her all the very best in this role.
This morning, the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency produced statistics showing that Northern Ireland has had 340 excess deaths in the last 10 weeks, which is a 16% increase over the last five years. That is obviously devastating for those families and for those people, and it is largely because of delayed diagnosis. The cancer statistics are still not published, which means that this figure will be even higher in the next few weeks. I wonder at what point in the crisis in the Northern Ireland health service the Health Secretary here will be able to step in with emergency provision and emergency organisation. Can the Leader of the House raise that urgently with the Health Secretary?
Penny Mordaunt
That is very hard to hear. One of the strengths of our national health service across the United Kingdom is that it is devolved and run in slightly different ways. I know that the chief medical officers work together very closely to share good practice, to learn from each other and to strengthen the system as a whole. I will certainly raise the hon. Member’s concerns with the new Secretary of State, but he will know that we are doing everything we can to restore a Government in Northern Ireland so that these issues can be gripped and dealt with.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to her place, and I think she will be a fantastic champion for this House. I also welcome the speed with which the Government are bringing forward measures to address the energy crisis. Alongside that, the No. 1 issue in my inbox from constituents is the fate or the future of Worcester Warriors rugby club. Professional rugby has been played at Sixways for all of my adult life, but this is now under threat due to the dire financial situation at the club. Five Worcestershire MPs have together written to both the incoming and outgoing Secretaries of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I am delighted—thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—that the Speaker has allowed an Adjournment debate on this issue on 19 September, but I fear that may be too late. We need urgent action by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport as well as Premiership Rugby and the Rugby Football Union to save the future of this club. Are there any opportunities for me to raise this issue even sooner than Monday after next?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he and his local colleagues are doing to secure the club’s future. He has done exactly as we would expect him to do in securing that debate, but time is of the essence. I will happily raise the issue on his behalf and ensure that the new Secretary of State realises it is a priority. We have previously assisted clubs, even if it is just by buying them a bit of time, and I know that the new Secretary of State will be keen to do all she can to assist.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Government have taken £4.4 billion from the mineworkers’ pension scheme to date. The cross-party Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee report concluded that the Government
“should not be in the business of profiting from mineworkers’ pensions.”
I and 50 colleagues wrote to the two leadership candidates last month about this, but we are yet to receive a reply, so can we have an urgent statement from this new Government on this scandal?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this matter. She can clearly raise it as a question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or seek to secure a debate, but I would be happy to notify the Department that this is a concern to her and ask it to get in touch.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Before the recess, I raised the plight of Obaidullah Jabarkhyl, a young Afghan boy who became separated from his family when they fled Afghanistan. Very sadly, he ended up in Paris while the rest of the family ended up here. Over the last 12 months, his solicitor, the family and my office have been trying to get him reunited with his family. The good news is that yesterday he arrived at King’s Cross and was reunited with his twin brother. However, this highlights the problems there are for Afghan refugees and others who are separated from their families across the world. Equally, 11,000 Afghan refugees are still in hotels in this country. May we have a debate in Government time on the plight of refugees, and on how we can ensure that we can short-circuit this and get people into decent homes that they can make their own?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is an assiduous campaigner on these matters, and he continues to raise his concerns but also concerns shared by many Members of the House. I know that the new Home Secretary will be looking at these issues and asking other Government Departments to grip them. I would be happy to raise this issue on his behalf, and I will certainly encourage the Home Office, as I have mentioned, to be as helpful to Members of this House as possible in resolving these cases.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Marie Curie’s Dying In Poverty campaign is calling for urgent action from the UK to safeguard terminally ill people and their families against poverty at the end of their lives. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out her support for that campaign, and will she use her good offices to urge her Cabinet colleagues to do likewise, and put an end to the shameful indictment of our society where people die in poverty?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. She will know that as part of today’s business, Members will be able to make some progress on that. I know it is connected to a whole raft of things, and I will be happy to point the new Secretary of State towards the hon. Lady’s concerns.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
There are not really enough hours in the day to speak about fishing and farming. With that in mind, will the Leader of the House please give Members more time in questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ask questions on rural affairs?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for reminding all Members of the House of the vital importance of farming, fishing and rural affairs. I shall certainly talk to the new Secretary of State about his concerns.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I warmly welcome the new Leader of the House and look forward to our Thursdays together. I remind her that some years ago, the lovely Cheryl Gillan managed to get the Autism Act 2009 through this place. May we have an early debate on the fact that autism is an important issue for so many families in this country? Up and down the country, many local authorities are ignoring that Act, failing to put it into operation, and leaving families in a dreadful state of despair.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House about one of the many services that Cheryl Gillan performed for this House in introducing that Act, which was supported by many Members of the House. It has been in operation for some time, and we should look at how it is performing. I encourage him to apply for a debate in the usual manner, and I will be happy to raise the issue with the several relevant Departments so that they can consider his request.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and welcome her to her new position. Following the shocking fire 10 days ago at beautiful Baggy Point in my stunning North Devon constituency that was caused by a disposable barbecue blowing up from the beach on to the tinder-dry gorse, may we have an urgent debate in Government time to consider banning those dangerous and unnecessary items from our open spaces?
Penny Mordaunt
That was a particularly shocking incident. Natural fires are a tragedy in themselves, but it is very depressing when they are preventable and caused by such events. The Government are ensuring that disposable barbecues are safe and include clear instructions for use, but there is clearly a lack of awareness about what might happen. I thank my hon. Friend for raising awareness of that issue today. I know she will continue to do so, and I am happy to raise the matter with the relevant Department.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Keepmoat Homes built a new housing estate in my constituency, offering people dream homes. However, many constituents have had snagging issues that they have struggled to resolve. There was actually a land grab by Keepmoat, with some gardens being smaller than was shown in the title deeds of the houses purchased, and general upkeep of the estate is poor; it is strewn with weeds, and general maintenance is lacking. Adjacent land still owned by Keepmoat is effectively a wasteland. Keepmoat Homes keeps fobbing off my office and promising to get back to us, but it never does—of course it is making more money building houses elsewhere. May we have a statement from the Leader of the House about how we can hold those so-called reputable companies to account and make them fulfil their promises?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman has certainly raised awareness of the conduct of that company on the Floor of the House, and he has done his constituents a service in the process. As he will know, he will perhaps be able to secure an Adjournment debate further to discuss what that business is and is not doing.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Earlier this week, Stoke City football club was proud to host our heroines, the Lionesses, as they stormed to a 10-nil victory over Luxembourg in a World cup qualifier, in front of a 24,000-strong crowd. It was a tremendous boost to the city of Stoke-on-Trent, and a great showcase for women’s football. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Lionesses on their victory? Can we secure parliamentary time for a debate on how we can improve access and opportunity for girls and women across our country to get into football?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us again of the Lionesses’ tremendous and continuing track record in bringing glory to our nation. I am happy to say that this week it was announced that former England and Great Britain footballer Karen Carney MBE is to chair an in-depth review into the future of domestic women’s football that will look at how we deliver growth to both elite and grassroots level football. Next week, there will be a Westminster Hall debate on the 2022 UEFA European women’s championship and participation of girls and young women in sport. I encourage all Members to contribute to that.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
On 25 August, my constituent Victoria Bowman and her husband were arrested in Myanmar for alleged visa offences as they returned to the city from Shan state. Ms Bowman served as the UK’s ambassador to Myanmar, and the Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business said that she has
“dedicated many years…to strengthen social and economic development in Myanmar.”
She is an upstanding citizen who has served our country with distinction, and the charges appear to be politically motivated. Will the Leader of the House please discuss this with the Foreign Secretary and look at how we can urgently help my constituent and her husband?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue. I shall pass her concerns on to the Foreign Office, and I encourage her to make contact with the new Foreign Secretary to discuss the matter directly.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
It is great to see my right hon. Friend in her place as she takes up her position; I warmly congratulate her. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council was awarded £20 million by the Government for a family hub. We all know that a person’s start in life can, unfortunately, still dictate where they go. We need to change that, and a family hub can do that. I am working alongside local campaigners to ensure that a family hub is located at Harvills Hawthorn Primary School in West Bromwich in my constituency. It has the site, the connections and the networks by which to build the hub; we just need to get Sandwell council on board. Will my right hon. Friend give us a debate in Government time and perhaps make representations in Government to support the campaign to get a family hub at Harvills Hawthorn Primary School?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, a former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who is in her place, has done a huge amount of work on early years and encouraging family hubs, and he is right to campaign so hard for one in his constituency. I would be happy to help him achieve that objective. This particular council is featuring greatly in today’s business questions, so perhaps hon. Members should club together in applying for a debate, whether on denying transport to people who have special educational needs or on the blocking of family hubs.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
This week, I received a rather predictable response from the Home Office. It said, “Thank you for your further inquiry on behalf of X, about his application for Y. X’s application is under consideration and we will contact him as soon as a decision is reached.” It was predictable because I get the same response every time I contact the Home Office.
This week, the Home Office sent Members a letter saying that it will now contact our offices by telephone to update them, not by email. Call me a cynic, but with that we lose the paper trail of email updates. Can we have a Government statement on what is being done about the unacceptable delays in Home Office correspondence and applications from our constituents?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. If we are to get everybody in, we do need quite short questions.
Penny Mordaunt
I am aware of the correspondence that the Home Office has sent out, and I very much doubt whether it had any ministerial oversight. I have raised it with the Home Office and said that our view is that that is not an acceptable service for Members. I think the Home Office does not understand how having a letter with a substantive answer is very helpful to Members in getting information to their constituents. I have raised that with both the Home Office and the Cabinet Office, and I will do all that I can to ensure that Members of this House get the service that they and their constituents need.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to her new position on the Front Bench. Some 28,000 migrants have now crossed the channel this year. I am afraid that our inability to control our borders is becoming increasingly difficult to defend to my constituents. Can we expect a statement from the new Home Secretary on this issue and on the further measures the Government will be taking to address it?
Penny Mordaunt
I think we can expect to hear from the new Home Secretary soon on these matters. It is a key priority for her. In addition to statements, we will also see action.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Leader of the House to her important new role and I wish her well with it. I suspect she has been studiously looking at the commitments the Prime Minister made over the summer, so she will know that, in a speech in Leeds on 28 July, the Prime Minister committed to build the northern powerhouse rail link to join up communities and unlock potential right across the north. That is hugely significant for the north of England, and I know that the metro Mayor in West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, and in South Yorkshire, Oliver Coppard, are very keen to talk to the Government. Can the Leader of the House speak to the new Transport Secretary so we can get early sight of the Government’s intentions in this regard?
Penny Mordaunt
Like the hon. Gentleman, I was very pleased to hear that commitment from our new Prime Minister. The timing but also the sequencing of these various schemes will be of huge interest to many Members, and I think it is a prime topic for a debate. I encourage him to apply for one.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
On 13 May, almost four months ago, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about a constituent who suffered a serious sexual assault at the hands of a medical professional. My research has shown that there is no support available for such people, no progress on implementing the recommendations of three inquiries and no systematic collection of data. I chased up the Secretary of State on 21 July, on 10 August and yesterday, on 7 September. Will the Leader of the House please confirm that she will now write to the new Secretary of State and ensure that my constituent, who has been incredibly courageous, will get a response to my letter of almost four months ago?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear about the case of the hon. Lady’s constituent. I shall certainly raise the matter and draw it to the attention of the new Secretary of State.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I wish the Leader of the House well in her new role—it is obviously an apprenticeship for the top job. On the steps of Downing Street this week, the new Prime Minister failed to mention Wales once. That has not gone unnoticed in Wales and in my constituency of Newport West. May we have a debate in Government time on the lessons the Conservative party can learn from the long-term and successful Welsh Labour Government, because there are plenty of them?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I would slightly take issue with the success rate of the Welsh Government on a number of fronts, but in the spirit of co-operation I encourage her to apply for a debate so we can have that discussion on the Floor of the House.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
I have requested meetings with the Home Office to discuss the exceptional case of a young woman from Afghanistan who has been offered a place to study nursing at the University of Dundee. This is an urgent case, and it is vital that it is resolved prior to the start of her course this month. I also understand that it is on the ministerial desk awaiting approval. Can the Leader of the House advise Members on what they can do to raise urgent cases with Ministers, and will she help to facilitate a meeting for me with colleagues in the Home Office?
Penny Mordaunt
I shall be happy to facilitate meetings if the hon. Gentleman is having difficulty securing them. As I said today and yesterday, I am sure the Home Office will want to give clarity on precisely the support it will give Members to resolve such issues.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Given the new Leader of the House’s experience of the fantastic Inspire sports centre in Luton South, may I ask her to join me in congratulating Amy Rollinson from Luton Diving Club on her bronze medal at the Commonwealth games? In view of the devastating floods in Pakistan—a third of the country is under water, 35 million people are affected and over 1,200 people are dead—please may we have an urgent debate about UK aid to Pakistan?
Penny Mordaunt
I happily join the hon. Lady in her congratulations on the achievements in diving in her constituency. She will know that we have given many millions in aid money to help the situation in Pakistan. Our high commission there is doing all it can to assist the Pakistan Government with the very difficult circumstances they are facing. I encourage her and others to apply for debates in the usual manner.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
A remedial order can take effect only 60 sitting days after it has been laid. We have been waiting far too long for a second remedial order to be laid for bereavement support payments for cohabiting couples. Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Government plan to lay that second remedial order?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very aware that, because this relates to sitting days, it is a longer period of time, and hon. Members have raised many issues today that need to be dealt with swiftly. I am having discussions with my team and the Deputy Leader of the House about how we can ensure that the measures that are urgently needed are brought forward in the swiftest possible time.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Delays to cancer treatment can be a matter of life and death, yet the Government are still not meeting seven of the nine urgent referral cancer targets. Can we have a debate in Government time about how we can improve the situation for those awaiting cancer treatment?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. Much of the waiting list pressure that the NHS is under is because of diagnostics, and I know that this will be a key focus for the new Secretary of State. I encourage him to apply for a debate in the usual manner.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the Leader of the House on her appointment.
My constituency celebrates two very important anniversaries this year: first, the 150th anniversary of the foundation of the “Sons of the Rock”, Dumbarton FC, which two members of my family have played for; and secondly, of course, the 800th anniversary of the royal borough of Dumbarton, which was founded by our late king, Alexander II—by the grace of God, King of Scots. Will the Leader of the House congratulate not only Dumbarton FC, but the people of Dumbarton on their ancient history? Does she also agree that it is about time that we recognised the value of sport and our great boroughs across these islands?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in his congratulations on both those achievements, and I wish them well in future years.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Shamefully, unnecessary delays to the Online Safety Bill have allowed dangerous misogyny and right-wing extremism to perpetuate online for far too long. We know that young boys are especially susceptible to that, and more and more are turning to the dark web in an attempt to find a place of belonging and acceptance. Will the Leader of the House therefore commit to a debate in Government time to look at how we can tackle that way of radicalisation before it is too late?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue and point her to the remarks that the Prime Minister made yesterday about our commitment to that Bill. Its progress is very important and Members will be able to contribute to that. If she wishes to have a further debate, I encourage her to apply for one in the usual way.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all firefighters in Stockport and across the country who work in very difficult conditions to keep people safe. Shockingly, data from the Fire Brigades Union shows that between 2010 and 2021, we lost 631 full-time firefighter roles in Greater Manchester. This is unacceptable and poses a real threat to the public where fire and rescue services may not be able to deal with every incident and fight all fires. As the new Prime Minister starts her term, there is a real opportunity to properly invest in the fire services again, so will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on funding for the fire and rescue services in Greater Manchester in the light of the years of cuts?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that question. These matters are for local people to decide, but clearly, the shape of the fire service is changing. It is taking on additional roles, as well as its traditional ones, and that will be a concern for many Members across the House. I encourage him to apply for a debate in the usual way.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
According to a UK Finance report, push payment fraud rose by 39% last year. That is no surprise to me, having spent the summer discussing this issue with affected constituents. More teeth are needed. We need to find a way to make sure that we have proper redress for the consumers and businesses affected and a way of dealing with the banks that are hosting the accounts that are benefiting from this high-value fraud. Can we have a debate in Government time on what more can be done here to make sure that we put an end to this very damaging and increasing fraud?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady raises an important issue that I know has been a focus for the Treasury in recent months. If she applies for a debate, I am sure that many hon. Members will wish to contribute.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
This Sunday marks World Suicide Prevention Day. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and I met Matthew from If U Care Share, who has been raising funds to support the work of the charity by running from Durham to 10 Downing Street. May I ask for a debate in Government time so that we can discuss suicide and self-harm prevention and the Government’s revision of the strategy?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important issue. I wish her constituent well in his mission to raise awareness of and funds for this important cause. I will happily raise the issue with the relevant Secretary of State. I am sure that if the hon. Lady secures a debate—I encourage her to apply for one—many Members of this House will wish to contribute.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Over the summer, my office—like those of many hon. Members, I am sure—has continued to experience considerable delays in contacting the MP account management team at UK Visas and Immigration and the Passport Office. Twice in the past few days, my staff have spent more than two hours on the phone getting through to an adviser, and then the adviser has only been reading out from a screen and has not been able to give information or assistance with complex cases. Please will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time about what action the Government can take to ensure that hon. Members are provided with support so that we, in turn, can give that support to our constituents?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Home Office has done a huge amount to improve the service. In recent months, it has taken on more than 1,000 new staff to process such applications. However, he is right that there is no point in having a service and hotline for MPs if there are not answers at the end. I shall certainly continue to ensure that the Home Office can deliver the services that Members of this House need and would welcome.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
My office is currently supporting several single mothers who continue to struggle with the child maintenance system, because support with chasing down parents who are avoiding paying and with enforcing repayment of large arrears just does not exist in a meaningful way in the current system. Will the Leader of the House ask the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement to the House on improving the system for my constituents and for the many single parents across the UK who are single-handedly carrying the financial and emotional burden of raising their children?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the matter. I will happily pass on her concerns to the new Secretary of State. Questions to the Department for Work and Pensions are scheduled for 17 October; I encourage the hon. Lady to raise the issue then as well.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups for the Pakistani minorities and for international freedom of religion or belief. I note with concern the horrific floods, devastation and loss of life in Pakistan over recent weeks. I am glad to hear of the various initiatives from this Government to deliver aid to alleviate the impact of the damage on people’s lives. Will the Leader of the House allow a statement on the importance of that aid reaching all those in need in Pakistan, particularly those who belong to other religious groups such as Christians and Ahmadis, who face systemic challenges in receiving the aid that they very much need?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman will know that historically the largest share of our aid budget has gone to Pakistan. As a consequence, we have a deep and well-informed relationship with respect to how that aid money is utilised; I know that our high commission there will ensure not only that it is distributed to give the maximum positive impact for everyone, but that there is no discrimination in how it is distributed.
Business of the House
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to UK Energy Costs not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; proceedings may continue, though opposed, until any hour, and may be entered upon after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Joy Morrissey.)
UK Energy Costs
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we start the debate, I want to put on record that I am very disappointed that a written ministerial statement that is relevant to it has only just been made available, in the last five minutes. Such statements should be made available, whenever possible, at 9.30 am. When they are relevant to a debate, as is the case today, it is doubly important for them to be available in good time. I am sorry that this has happened. I consider it to be discourteous to the House, and I hope that is not the way the new Government intend to treat the House. Rather than judging it to be deliberate, I will put it down to bad management or incompetence.
We now come to the general debate on UK energy costs. Before I call the Prime Minister to open the debate—[Interruption.] This is not the day for that, given the way the House has been treated. I am defending Back Benchers and I expect a little more decorum from you.
Before I call the Prime Minister to open the debate, I should point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of her opening speech is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
The Prime Minister (Elizabeth Truss)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK Energy Costs.
Earlier this week—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Just one second, Prime Minister. We have started the debate, and I do not want to hear any more from that particular Bench. If I do, I will go and get that cup of tea early.
The Prime Minister
Earlier this week, I promised that I would deal with the soaring energy prices faced by families and businesses across the UK, and today I am delivering on that promise. This Government are moving immediately to introduce a new energy price guarantee that will give people certainty on energy bills, and will curb inflation and boost growth. The guarantee—which includes a temporary suspension of green levies—means that from 1 October a typical household will pay no more than £2,500 per year for each of the next two years, while we get the energy market back on track. It will save a typical household £1,000 a year, and it comes in addition to the £400 energy bills support scheme. It supersedes the Ofgem price cap, and has been agreed with energy retailers.
The Prime Minister
I will give way in a few minutes, when I have made some progress.
We will deliver this by securing the wholesale price for energy, while putting in place long-term measures to secure future supplies at more affordable rates. We are supporting the country through this winter and next, and tackling the root causes of high prices, so that we are never in this position again.
The Prime Minister
For those using heating oil, those living in park homes or those on heat networks, we will set up a fund—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry about this, Prime Minister. Can I just say that I do want a running commentary from Members giving me advice? I certainly do not need it.
I do not want to interrupt you, Prime Minister—it is up to you to give way when you feel it is appropriate—but I just want to let you know that the written ministerial statement has now been printed, and I hope it will be brought into the Chamber for everybody to see.
The Prime Minister
As I was saying, for those using heating oil, those living in park homes or those on heat networks, we will set up a fund so that all UK consumers can benefit from equivalent support.
Alan Brown
National Energy Action estimates that with the cap at the current level, 6.5 million households are in fuel poverty. If the level is raised to £2,500, how many more millions of people does the Prime Minister reckon will end up in fuel poverty?
The Prime Minister
We are taking action to help people on the lowest incomes through universal credit, and we are also supplying £400 through the energy bills support scheme.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I would like to make some progress, and then I will take more interventions.
We will also support all businesses, charities and public sector organisations with their energy costs this winter, offering an equivalent guarantee for six months. After those six months, we will provide further support for vulnerable sectors, such as hospitality, including our local pubs. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will work with business to review where that should be targeted to ensure that those most in need get support. The review will be concluded within three months, giving businesses certainty. In the meantime, companies with the wherewithal need to be looking for ways to improve energy efficiency and increase direct energy generation.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way and commend her on the speed with which she and her new team have really gripped the challenge that is facing the country. Does that not demonstrate that Conservative Governments do not stand by while millions of people on low incomes are struggling? I strongly support the measures she is announcing today.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I recognise that people are struggling with their energy bills and that is why I have brought forward this debate as soon as possible to give people reassurance ahead of the winter that energy bills are going to be affordable.
We will bring forward emergency legislation to deliver the policy. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out the expected costs as part of his fiscal statement later this month. I can tell the House today that we will not give in to the Leader of the Opposition, who calls for this to be funded through a windfall tax. That would undermine the national interest by discouraging the very investment we need to secure home-grown energy supplies.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
If hon. Members will allow me to make a bit more progress, I may be able to answer their questions before they have asked them.
The Opposition need to understand—
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Copies of the written ministerial statement have been made available to some Members, but there are not enough for everybody—[Interruption.] If I might finish my point of order: is it possible for sufficient copies to be made so that we can all see the statement?
Mr Speaker
As we both know, that is not a point of order, but it is certainly a clarification that the copies are now coming out. We are printing them as fast as possible to make sure that all Members have the ability to read them. It is with great disappointment that we are doing so, but that is a matter of fact.
The Prime Minister
Instead of taking the Opposition’s approach, we are taking an approach that is pro-growth, pro-business and pro the investment we need for our country’s energy security.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that we are too short of energy but have plenty of taxes, and that if we had an over-supply of taxes, as the Labour party wants, we would have less supply of the things we were taxing?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The reality is that we cannot tax our way to growth. The policy that I am setting out today is all about helping people with their energy costs, as I promised, and making sure that we have the long-term energy supplies that we need for our country.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Just six months ago, households faced energy bills of £1,300. We are today being told that fixing prices at £2,500 is the best the Government can do. It is not, so why is the Prime Minister putting private energy profits ahead of people at this crucial time?
The Prime Minister
What we are doing is the important work to help people and businesses get through this winter and next winter while fixing Britain’s long-term energy supply.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I have already given way on a number of occasions. I will give way later, and ask Members to hold off a bit longer.
This is the moment to be bold. We are facing a global energy crisis and there are no cost-free options. There will be a cost to this intervention.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I strongly welcome this package, which is a marked contrast to the meagre scraps offered by the Opposition. I also welcome my right hon. Friend’s confirmation that schools and colleges will be helped with their energy bills, as colleges face increases of 300%. Will she continue to bear down on fuel duty, because we know that motorists face extortionate bills when they fill up their car at the pumps?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his point. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is listening intently to his point ahead of the fiscal statement later this month.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I want to make some progress on explaining how we will defray the cost of this intervention, which I think might answer some hon. Members’ questions before they ask them.
We will defray the cost of this intervention by, first, ramping up supply. Following on from the successful vaccine taskforce, we have created a new energy supply taskforce under the leadership of Maddy McTernan. The taskforce is already negotiating new long-term energy contracts with domestic and international gas suppliers to bring down the cost of intervention immediately.
We are also accelerating all sources of domestic energy, including North sea oil and gas production. We will be launching a new licensing round, which we expect to lead to more than 100 new licences being awarded; and we will speed up our deployment of all clean and renewable technologies, including hydrogen, solar, carbon capture and storage, and wind, where we are already a world leader in offshore generation. Renewable and nuclear generators will move on to contracts for difference, to end the situation in which electricity prices are set by the marginal price of gas. This will mean that generators receive a fair price that reflects their cost of production, further bringing down the cost of this intervention.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I warmly welcome the immediate action announced by the Prime Minister on the cost of energy, which will help families in my Pendle constituency and right across the United Kingdom. Next week is nuclear week in Parliament, so will she join me in supporting the roll-out of small modular reactors championed by Rolls-Royce, which has two sites in my constituency? We need this technology now, so will she go further and faster in driving forward the nuclear programme in this country?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that small modular reactors are a very important part of our energy mix. They are produced here in the United Kingdom. They will help to boost growth as well as boosting our energy security.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I will take a few more interventions in a few minutes, but I ask Members please to let me make progress on my speech.
Secondly, today’s actions will deliver substantial benefits to our economy—boosting growth, which increases tax receipts, and giving certainty to business. This intervention is expected to curb inflation by up to five percentage points, bringing a reduction in the cost of servicing Government debt.
Thirdly, I am announcing today that, with the Bank of England, we will set up a new scheme worth up to £40 billion to ensure that firms operating in the wholesale energy market have the liquidity they need to manage price volatility. This will stabilise the market and decrease the likelihood of energy retailers needing our support, as they did last winter.
By increasing supply, boosting the economy and increasing liquidity in the market, we will significantly reduce the cost to Government of this intervention.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
It is very kind of the Prime Minister to give way to so many sensible Members.
Today is clearly a big intervention, and the Government are, as she promised, wrapping their arms around my constituents, as we did during the pandemic. Looking to the future, can she confirm that the plans are primarily about domestic supply rather than imported reliance and are therefore in line with the important commitments we made at COP26 in Glasgow and with our commitment to the path to net zero made in our manifesto three years ago?
The Prime Minister
I am completely committed to net zero by 2050 and I will be saying more about how we will be achieving that later in this speech.
As well as dealing with the immediate situation we face, we are also dealing with the root causes.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I welcome the Prime Minister to her place and hope she will work with Opposition parties in the national interest. Will she confirm that her announcement today will still see the energy bills of struggling families rising by another £500 next month and that this winter they will be paying energy bills that are twice those they paid last winter?
The Prime Minister
At the same time as introducing the energy price guarantee, we are also providing families with £400 and providing extra support to the vulnerable. Vulnerable families will be receiving that extra support.
I want to move on to why we are in the situation we are in now. The fact is that energy policy over the past decades has not focused enough on securing supply. [Interruption.] I do not know why the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) is laughing, as he is partly responsible for this. There is no better example than nuclear, where the UK has not built a single new nuclear reactor in 25 years. This is not just about supply; the regulatory structures have failed, exposing the problems of a price cap applied to the retail but not the wholesale market. All of that has left us vulnerable to volatile global markets and malign actors in an increasingly geopolitical world. That is why Putin is exploiting this situation by weaponising energy supplies as part of his illegal war on Ukraine.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Prime Minister accept that with 150 years’ worth of gas under the ground in Great Britain it is absolute madness to turn our back on that resource at a time when people are facing huge energy bills? Will she also explain how she intends to deliver the support that she is talking about in Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
I do agree with the right hon. Gentleman and I am coming to the point about shale gas in a minute. I can assure him that this policy will apply in Northern Ireland and those benefits will be open to the people of Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom.
As well as the action that I am announcing today, we will use these two years ahead of us to make sure that the United Kingdom is never in this situation again. I will be launching two reviews. The first is a review of energy regulation to fix the underlying problems. We want a new approach that will address supply and affordability for the long term. Secondly, we will conduct a review to ensure we deliver net zero by 2050 in a way that is pro-business and pro-growth. That review will be led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore).
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
First, on behalf of the people of South Leicestershire, may I welcome my right hon. Friend to her role? She mentions Putin. The measures she is announcing today are incredibly welcome for my constituents and all our constituents, in order to protect in particular the poorest and most vulnerable in society, but will she give an assurance today that her Government will continue to stand firm against the appalling and brutal actions of Putin and his thuggish regime? Will she tell the British people honestly that we are in for a difficult winter, notwithstanding the challenges that face us?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right: the reason we are in this difficult situation is Putin’s appalling war in Ukraine. But we do need to make sure that our energy supplies are more resilient and secure, so that we are never in this situation again and so that we cannot be subject to global energy prices and the actions of dictators.
We are delivering a stable environment that gives investors the confidence to back gas as part of our transition to net zero. It is vital that we take steps to increase our domestic energy supply.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I will make a bit more progress and then I will give way.
We will end the moratorium on extracting our huge reserves of shale, which could get gas flowing as soon as six months from now where there is local support for it. We will launch Great British Nuclear later this month, putting us on a path to deliver up to a quarter of our electricity generation with nuclear by 2050.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. Last September, I asked the then Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), why the Government signed off on the closure of the Rough gas storage facility. He dismissed it as not relevant and accused me of stoking panic and alarm. The Government are reportedly now reopening that facility. That does not suggest that the new Chancellor is a man of foresight and strategy, does it, Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
We are in a very difficult situation and I am committed, as Prime Minister, to doing everything it takes to resolve the situation, to helping people with their energy bills and to making sure we have security of supply for the long term.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I have taken a lot of interventions and need to make progress on the speech.
As a result of these steps on shale and nuclear, and the acceleration of renewables, I am today setting a new ambition for our country. Far from being dependent on the global energy market and the actions of malign actors, we will make sure that the UK is a net energy exporter by 2040. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will set out a plan in the next two months to make sure we achieve that.
I know that businesses and families are very concerned about how they will get through this winter. That is why I felt it was important to act urgently to provide immediate help and support, as well as to set out our plan for how we will secure the UK’s future energy supplies. This is part of my vision for rebuilding our economy. Secure energy supply is vital to growth and prosperity, yet it has been ignored for too long. I will end the UK’s short-termist approach to energy security and supply once and for all. That is what I promised on the steps of Downing Street. Today, we are acting decisively on that pledge. This will help us build a stronger, more resilient and more secure United Kingdom. I commend the motion to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
A lot of Members wish to get in, so think of others once we have got through the Front Benchers.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of her opening speech.
We are in the middle of a national emergency. People are really scared, families do not know if they can warm their homes this winter and businesses ask if they can keep the lights on. That is why the Labour party spent the summer fighting for a price freeze, so that no household would pay a penny more on their bills. When we called for it, many people said we were wrong. They pretended that this crisis was something that just affected the poorest, as if working families on average wages could easily shoulder astronomical bills. They dismissed our call for support as “handouts”. But those objections could never last; the Prime Minister had no choice. No Government can stand by while millions of families fall into poverty, while businesses shut their doors and while the economy falls to ruin. So I am pleased that there is action today and that the principle of a price limit has been accepted, but under our plan there will be not a penny more on bills; under this plan, there will be a price rise.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I will just make some progress and then I will give way.
This support does not come cheap. The real question before the House today—the real question the Government face; the political question—is who is going to pay. The Treasury estimates that energy producers could make £170 billion in unexpected windfall profits over the next two years. Let me repeat that: £170 billion in unexpected windfall profits over the next two years.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I will give way in just a moment.
The head of BP has called this crisis “a cash machine” for his company. Households are on the other end of that cash machine—their bills are funding these eye-watering profits. That is why we have been calling for a windfall tax since January, and it is why we want to see the windfall tax expanded now, but the Prime Minister is opposed to windfall taxes. She wants to leave these vast profits on the table, with one clear and obvious consequence: the bill will be picked up by working people. She claims that a windfall tax will deter investment. That is ridiculous. These vast profits are not the reward for careful planning. They are the unexpected windfall from Putin’s barbarity in Ukraine. There is no reason why taxing them would affect investment in the future.
Do not just take my word for it. Asked which investment BP would cancel if there were a windfall tax, the chief executive said, “None”—his word, not mine. The Prime Minister’s only argument against the windfall tax falls apart at first inspection, laying bare the fact that she is simply driven by dogma, and it is working people who will pay for that dogma.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that this Government have already introduced a windfall tax, and energy companies today are paying 65% on their profits? What would he rather see that tax set at?
Keir Starmer
We are talking about what happens this winter and next. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand—[Interruption.] I will tell him something. Every pound the Prime Minister’s Government refuse to raise in windfall taxes, which is leaving billions on the table, is an extra pound of borrowing. That is the simple, straightforward argument. Every pound that she leaves on the table is an extra pound of borrowing, loading the burden of the cost of living crisis onto working people who will have to pay back for years to come.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has been careful to frame her guarantee in terms of her refusal to tax, but will she not have a problem explaining to the British people how a levy on their bills in the future to repay the borrowing is not actually a tax?
Keir Starmer
This is the basic political divide. The Government want to protect the excess profits of the oil and gas and energy groups; we want to protect working people.
Mr Perkins
This Saturday, I and many members of Chesterfield Labour party will be out meeting voters in Chesterfield. If any of those voters have not been paying attention this week, they might still say, “You’re all the same.” But is it not absolutely clear now that there is a clear divide? When I knock on doors, every voter will know that political parties have a choice. The Government have chosen to be on the side of the energy generators; we have chosen to be on the side of bill payers.
Keir Starmer
I would be absolutely amazed if Government Members have not picked that up. Ask voters whether they think it is fair that they pick up the bill, rather than those companies that made profits they did not expect to make. There is only one answer to that question. It is a very simple question of whose side are you on.
I am afraid this is not a one-off. Not only is the Prime Minister refusing to extend the windfall tax; she is choosing to cut corporation tax—an extra £17 billion in tax cuts for companies that are already doing well. That means handing a tax cut to the water companies polluting our beaches, handing tax cuts to the banks and handing a tax cut to Amazon. She is making that choice, even though households and public services need every penny they can get. Working people are paying for the cost of living crisis, stroke victims are waiting an hour for an ambulance and criminals walk the streets with impunity. It is the wrong choice for working people; it is the wrong choice for Britain.
Mr Dhesi
The Government appear to have decided to deal with this energy crisis on the backs of ordinary hard-working Brits, and to load huge levels of debt on to future generations, rather than properly taxing the billions of pounds of excess profits of the energy companies. Why are the Government on the side of big corporate rather than ordinary hard-working Brits? Is it because the Prime Minister is a former employee of Shell and is therefore on the side of oil and gas companies instead of protecting ordinary working British people?
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention. It comes down to this basic point. All hon. Members recognise that profits are needed for investment in all businesses, but in this case these are profits that the companies did not expect to make. When the chief executive of BP says that the windfall tax would not deter any investment, it is a bit rich for Government Members to say that he is completely wrong. He is the chief executive of BP. He has made his case and it is the complete opposite of the case the Prime Minister is trying to make.
The immediate cause of this energy crisis is Putin’s grotesque invasion of Ukraine. We stand united in our support for Ukraine. If we are to defend democracy, defeat imperialism and preserve security on our continent, Putin’s aggression must fail. Whatever our political differences, the Prime Minister will always have my full support in that common endeavour. But we must ask ourselves why we are so exposed to changes in the international price of oil and gas. Why are we so at the mercy of dictators able to pull the plug on wells and shut down pipelines? Why is there such a fundamental flaw in our national security?
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I will make my argument and then I will give way.
It is about a failure to prepare, a failure to increase our energy independence and a failure to rapidly decrease our reliance on fossil fuels. The Conservatives banned onshore wind in 2015, and that cost us clean energy capacity equivalent to all our Russian gas imports in recent years—a policy disaster. The Prime Minister has been consistently opposed to solar power, the cheapest form of energy we have, and she has been consistently wrong. It is not just what the Prime Minister said in the heat of her leadership campaign this summer. When she was Environment Secretary, the Government slashed solar subsidies and the market crashed.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The Leader of the Opposition is being completely misleading, if I may say so. It is under this Government that the United Kingdom has the second highest offshore wind generation capacity of anywhere in the world. How is that created? It is through investment by companies, and this Government will allow for that to happen.
Keir Starmer
I take it from that intervention that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not quarrel with me that the ban on onshore wind since 2015 has been a policy disaster, along with the opposition to solar power.
Keir Starmer
I will of course take the former Prime Minister’s intervention.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention and I will deal with it in full, because it is a very important point. Nuclear is vital to our future, and a new generation of power plants should have been built by now. Yesterday, the Prime Minister desperately tried to blame Labour, and that intervention goes to that point. I remember the exchange across the Dispatch Box in 2006 when Prime Minister Blair said that he was pro-nuclear, and the Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, did not know where to look. If Members have not seen the clip, they should have a look. The uncomfortable truth for Members opposite is that the last Labour Government gave the go-ahead for new nuclear sites in 2009. In the 13 long years since then, not one has been completed.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Tony Blair may have said that he was pro-nuclear, but he did not actually build any nuclear power stations.
On the windfall tax and the £170 billion that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, it is my understanding that most of that is not profits of UK companies but from energy supplied to the UK, and it is not within our ability to tax it. We already have a windfall tax that taxes those profits at 65%. How high does he think a windfall tax should go?
Keir Starmer
What was the Conservative party’s position on nuclear when David Cameron was asked the question in 2006? He did not have a position on it. I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about the £170 billion. If there is any doubt, I invite the Treasury to disclose the documents so that we can all evaluate them.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Is not the bigger point that there is a simple choice about how to pay for this? It either all goes on borrowing, ordinary families and the never-never, or at least some of it is paid for by a windfall tax on unearned and unexpected income which Putin has put into the pockets of Shell and BP. That is the fundamental choice.
Keir Starmer
That is the fundamental choice and the fundamental divide in the House. Let the Conservatives defend their position of protecting those excess profits, and we will defend our position of standing up for working people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I will make some progress: I have taken a lot of interventions.
Let me turn to home insulation, which reduces energy consumption like nothing else. We have the draughtiest homes in Europe. The last Labour Government set about fixing that. Then the Conservative party said, “cut the green crap”, and the whole project all but collapsed. Installation rates fell by 92%—utterly short-sighted, and costing millions of households £1,000 a year on their energy bills right now.
The Prime Minister is right to recognise that immediate support needs to be combined with longer term action. Fracking and a dash for gas in the North sea will not cut bills, nor strengthen our energy security, but they will drive a coach and horses through our efforts to fight the looming climate crisis. The Prime Minister should listen to her Chancellor, who is sitting next to her. What did he have to say on fracking just a few months ago? I see him leaning forward. This is a long quote, and I have tried to cut it down, but every sentence is worth repeating.
“Those calling for its return misunderstand the situation we find ourselves in…if we lifted the fracking moratorium, it would take up to a decade to extract sufficient volumes—and it would come at a high cost for communities and our precious countryside.”
Those are his words. I will go on, because this is so good. He said, just a few months ago:
“Second, no amount of shale gas from hundreds of wells dotted across rural England would be enough to lower the European price any time soon.”
He went on:
“And with the best will in the world, private companies are not going to sell the shale gas they produce to UK consumers below the market price. They are not charities”.
Spot on, Chancellor.
What did the Chancellor have to say about North sea gas at the same time? He said that,
“additional North Sea production won’t materially affect the wholesale price”.
Indeed, earlier this year his previous Department helpfully put out a series of Government myth-busting documents. Here is one of them—Chancellor, your document:
“MYTH: Extracting more North Sea gas lowers prices.”
Answer:
“FACT: UK production isn’t large enough to materially impact the global price of gas”.
I have a copy for the Prime Minister.
We do need to carefully manage our existing resources in the North sea, and the industry has an important role to play in our future as we transition to a different form of energy, but doubling down on fossil fuels is a ludicrous answer to a fossil fuel crisis. If all countries took the approach advocated by the Prime Minister’s new Energy Secretary of squeezing “every last drop” out of their fossil fuel reserves, global temperatures would rise by a catastrophic 3°. That would be devastating for our planet and for future generations, and it is totally unnecessary.
Keir Starmer
I am going to make some progress, because other speakers need to get in.
New wind and solar power are now nine times cheaper—nine times cheaper! We need a clean energy sprint, urgently accelerating the rollout of offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen, and tidal. Last year, I set out a new national mission to insulate 19 million homes and cut bills for good. If the Government had taken me up on that challenge, 2 million homes would already be insulated by this winter.
Britain needs a fresh start. We need a Government who will never leave working people to pick up the tab for excess profits in the energy industry. We need a Government who plan for the long term rather than leaving us badly exposed to the whims of dictators, and we need a Government who will drive us forward to energy independence rather than doubling down on fossil fuels. The change we need is not the fourth Tory Prime Minister in six years; it is a Labour Government.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on acting so swiftly to bring forward a package of support for people with their energy bills. There is no doubt, as every Member of this House knows, that that is a matter of real concern for people in my constituency and every other constituency, who have been worried about how they will heat their homes, and businesses that have been worried about how they can continue to operate.
I also welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has coupled action on energy bills with action on energy security. The vicious further invasion of Ukraine by Russia has indeed shown the necessity of our having our own energy security, although it makes sense anyway. We have made important progress on that over recent years; I refer, of course, to the investment in Hinkley Point C, and I again welcome the commitment that my right hon. Friend and the Government have made to continuing that support for nuclear energy. As I pointed out in my intervention—
Mrs May
Just wait a second—or perhaps more than one second. As I pointed out in my intervention on the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, and as was emphasised by the excellent intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), in 13 years of Government, whatever the then leader of the Labour party might have said, they did not build any new nuclear capability.
Alan Brown
Hinkley Point C will be at least four years late, possibly five. It is nearly 50% over budget and EDF has an eye-watering 35-year contract for a strike rate at £92.50 per MW, compared with roughly £40 per MW for just 15 years in onshore and offshore wind. The right hon. Lady should have scrapped Hinkley Point C when she had the chance, should she not?
Mrs May
It is high time that Scottish nationalists came up with some practical solutions to these issues, rather than rejecting everything the Government suggests.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
We are all trying to find energy security, so I say to the former Prime Minister and to the Government Front Bench that we should be prioritising tidal. There is an excellent Royal Society report from last year that indicates that we can get 11.5 GW. I ask the Government to enhance the ringfenced pot from £20 million to £50 million; they will get the baseload they need, and they will not need nuclear energy.
Mrs May
This is rather strange point in my political career, because I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the importance of tidal. When I was Prime Minister I looked very closely, over a significant period of time, at proposals for the Severn estuary in particular. Unfortunately, at that time the price that would have had to be guaranteed in relation to the cost to the consumer was too high. Of course, looking at it today, it could be a very different picture.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister outlined a number of steps the Government are taking, and I look forward to seeing the full details of those. However, I suggest there are some other measures that would both address energy prices and energy security while capitalising on our high-growth tech sectors, and help us to meet our domestic and international climate change obligations. There are measures that will save people money that will also help to save the planet.
The UK has already shown that we do not have to choose between low emissions and economic growth. We can have both. To achieve net zero we will need to remove the country’s dependence on fossil fuels. My right hon. Friend announced a net zero review; perhaps when he sums up this debate the Secretary of State could indicate how that net zero review will fit in with the net zero strategy that the Government published in advance of COP26, and which many are already working on.
While my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has acted swiftly and correctly to help people over these difficult times, it makes sense to accelerate our transition to a low-carbon energy system. That can be done by speeding up the roll-out of low-cost, home-grown renewable technologies.
Kevin Brennan
The former Prime Minister says that the Government have acted correctly, but the Government’s case is that energy prices are going up because of the war in Ukraine. Therefore, those profits are being earned because of the war in Ukraine. Why is it right to prioritise war profiteering and instead have a stealth tax on households?
Mrs May
What is right is to provide support for households who are worried about their energy bills, and that is exactly what the Government are doing.
Of course, if we are going to increase our use of renewables, it is important that the price people pay for their electricity reflects the cost of that production and not the cost of gas. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend—
Mrs May
I am going to make some progress. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has indicated that she will take action in relation to that particular matter, but getting full benefit from that does mean upgrading the UK’s power grid infrastructure. Alongside that, we need to improve the energy efficiency of homes, which would not only reduce demand for energy, saving people money, but is an element that would help to save the planet. We need to consider rolling out a significant home insulation programme.
Mrs May
I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), and then to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).
Richard Graham
My right hon. Friend’s Government did indeed look very closely at the prospect of a tidal lagoon off Swansea bay. It is quite correct, as she says, that at the time it was too expensive—although the price now looks relatively attractive. Does she agree that the real opportunity now, which the current Chancellor was very supportive of when he was at BEIS, is for marine energy to come from tidal stream? The new renewable auction is supporting that, but there is much more that can be done, especially if we can affect the planning regulations around the pipeline of opportunity. Does she agree that there is more this Government could do on that?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I welcome every opportunity to increase the diversity of our supply of energy, and looking at these new opportunities is absolutely a way to do that.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I completely support the tidal lagoon in Swansea and hope that is now a real possibility for us—I hope the Prime Minister would accept that—and I agree with the right hon. Lady about insulation. I think I understood the Prime Minister to say earlier that there would be protection for public services for just six months. Many local authorities, hospitals and schools are facing dramatically increased bills already. Are they not going to need more support than just six months?
Mrs May
I think the public sector will be very pleased to hear that the Government have taken their concerns on board and are providing support for them.
There is another step that the Government need to take: they should look at building regulations. We are still building homes with gas boilers. Does it not make sense to change the regulations? Those gas homes will have to be retrofitted in just a few years’ time, so surely it is more cost-effective to take action now.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has had one intervention. What I am bothered about is that there are a lot of people who want to get in. I do not want to stifle the debate, but I do want to make sure that everybody gets a voice.
Mrs May
I apologise, Mr Speaker, for being generous in taking interventions.
The Government are also key to driving greater private sector investment in low-carbon solutions, for instance by de-risking investment in early-stage technologies—we have already heard about some early-stage technologies—and emerging sectors such as hydrogen production. Greater investor certainty cuts the cost of new technology, drives innovation, creates jobs and boosts economic growth. The Government’s unequivocal support for this agenda would be a positive signal not just for our green tech industry, but for the ambition of the UK economy more broadly.
Mrs May
I am just about to finish.
People need help with their bills today, and that is what the Government are providing. But Britain led the world through the industrial revolution. If we grasp the opportunity now, we can lead the world in a cleaner, greener form of growth.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). If I may briefly reflect back on the way she behaved when she was Prime Minister, I have to say that she showed courtesy to Opposition leaders, whether it was the then leader of the Labour party or ourselves as the third party. If I may gently say so to the Prime Minister, some of the protocols to make sure that we have advance sight of statements, and indeed are aware of when the Prime Minister will be coming to the Chamber to speak, are important—I do not know whether she was listening to any of that, but it would be helpful if it could be passed on.
At the start of the year we were faced with an energy crisis. By the summer it was an emergency. Right now, today, we are at the precipice of a humanitarian disaster, because it is no longer a question of whether to heat or eat when many households can no longer afford to do either.
Ian Blackford
Let me make some progress and then I will.
This cost crisis puts livelihoods and lives at risk. All the while, as this disaster deepened, all summer the Tories spent all their time desperately fighting among themselves, and the public were left desperately waiting for a real cost of living plan. We finally—finally—have a plan today, but I fear that when the public absorb the details, it will fall far short of the help we need.
We have heard today that the green levies are being scrapped. That is of deep concern to those of us on these Benches, particularly given that the green levies fund the warm home discount scheme and, of course, energy-efficiency measures for low-income households. I ask the Government to make sure that that support will remain in place for those who need it. But the sheer scale of the soaring energy bills meant that there was never any question but that households and businesses would not be able to pay the cost of energy bills. They were, and they are, unaffordable. If these prices were not frozen, the bills simply could not have been paid, so freezing prices was not really a choice. It is the only political option.
When the current price cap stands at £2,000, with a 54% increase since spring, and when many people are already unable to pay, setting the cap at £2,500 is not an actual freeze. We know, too, that businesses, especially SMEs, are facing even sharper cost increases than households, and an avalanche of insolvencies and redundancies is forecast. Many businesses simply could not have afforded to stay open.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Reids bakery in my constituency, which supplies biscuits to the four corners of the world, is in danger of going bust by Christmas. May I appeal to the Government, in a spirit of inclusivity, to please look at the letter that I have been sent by Reids bakery and see what could be tailored to help a vital business in a remote part of the UK?
Ian Blackford
I agree with my hon. Friend and neighbouring MP. Indeed, over the course of the last few weeks I have visited businesses in Ayrshire with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). We visited another bakery, Brownings, and met with the industry body. It is clear that bakers in particular are facing real struggles with the rise of energy and other costs. It is critical that the Government give the details of what they are intending in order to support businesses.
Steve McCabe
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. On the question of the cap, the Prime Minister indicated that one of her reviews will be of regulation. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is time to take a serious look at the operations of Ofgem and how much support it is giving as a regulator to consumers, whether domestic consumers or businesses?
Ian Blackford
I think it is fair to say that the current regime is not fit for purpose, which is why we are in this situation today, so an urgent review of that is absolutely required.
Let me make some progress. Good, profitable businesses seeing a tsunami of cost increases, with energy costs at its core, are quite simply facing a fight for survival. It is clear that today’s plan does not go nearly far enough to mitigate the expected cost increase facing employers. The UK Government need to grasp the scale of this emergency.
Mr Speaker
Order. I wish to say something about the announcement that has just been made about Her Majesty. I know that I speak on behalf of the entire House when I say that we send our best wishes to Her Majesty the Queen, and that she and the royal family are in our thoughts and prayers at this moment. I am not going to take any contributions on this now; if there is anything else, we will update the House accordingly.
Ian Blackford
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me say, I am sure on behalf of all colleagues, that we are saddened to hear the announcement that has been made. The thoughts and prayers of us all will be with Her Majesty the Queen and indeed with the royal family.
In reality, the one big political question—the real question—was how today’s plan would be paid for and who would pay for it. Ever since the new Prime Minister took office, we have been waiting for these answers, but after all the waiting it could not be any clearer. She set it out very brazenly: the Prime Minister’s plan means that the public pay. She has made the political choice to tax families instead of companies—to put profit over people. Instead of a windfall tax, she has chosen a new Tory tax: the Truss tax—the Truss tax that means that, in the months and years ahead, households and businesses will be punished with higher bills, higher interest rates and higher mortgage costs. A Truss tax means cuts to the vital public services that people rely on and that are used to support the most vulnerable. A Truss tax means a threat to the Scottish budget, which the Scottish Government are using to protect our population and shield workers and public services as best they can.
Jacob Young
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He seems to be making an argument for a windfall tax on the oil and gas companies. They already pay 65% on their profits. Given that the Leader of the Opposition was not able to answer this question, what would he rather see that tax set at?
Ian Blackford
I am grateful for that intervention. If the hon. Member just bears with me, I will come to that specific point, but the issue of who pays is important, because there is no—[Interruption.] Well, actually I will do, and the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) might actually show some respect, if he does not mind. At the end of the day, oil and gas producers are making windfall profits. Our constituents, and his constituents, are suffering. It is right that we look at the contribution that those making windfall profits will make, and I will come to that.
Ian Blackford
I am going to make a little progress, because I am conscious that others want to get in.
The frightening thing is that the new Prime Minister made that choice on day one in the job. On day one, we saw the pound slip to a low not seen since the Thatcher years, knocked by the UK’s worsening economic outlook. Her first major decision as Prime Minister will prioritise big business profits over family budgets, and we can already predict that the Truss tax, which will be paid for by households for years to come, will be her enduring legacy. It will eat away at household budgets long after she and her party have been voted out of office. If day one was that bad, we cannot blame people for fearing that the worst is yet to come.
The decision not to bring in an additional windfall tax is the biggest and worst political choice in the plan. Let us look at Shell and BP as an example. I want corporates to be profitable and to be able to invest to create jobs and to finance a green transition, but there is a difference between a fair profit and an excess windfall or excess profit. Shell’s first half profits were up by 177% to $25.2 billion. It made excess profits to such an extent that it bought back shares worth $8.5 billion and declared that it would buy back a further $6 billion of shares between July and September. If we want an example of where excess profit is, it is there. In total, that means that $14.5 billion of excess profits will not be invested in green energy projects—money that has been generated from the high energy prices that our constituents and our businesses have to pay. That is the reality.
BP’s quarter 2 profits were up from $3.1 billion to $9.2 billion, and there is a share buyback for this quarter of $3.5 billion. It will frankly disgust our constituents that that money is being given back to shareholders when people simply cannot afford to put their heating on. They are global corporates, but we can and should fairly tax their UK activities, so why on earth is the Prime Minister failing to bring in a fair windfall tax? Why will ordinary people across these islands ultimately have to foot these bills? Why does her plan not address that real issue?
This energy plan is defined not only by the choice to make the public pay, instead of the excess profits of massive corporations, but by its glaring omissions. There is no proper plan to help those who are already struggling. Support needs to be targeted to low-income households and those negatively affected by spiralling costs, such as unpaid carers, larger households and disabled people.
In Scotland, we are already prioritising support to the most vulnerable. The Scottish Government are doing what they can by freezing rents, banning evictions, freezing train fares and expanding free school meals to primary 6 and primary 7. That is a Government acting with compassion.
Chris Law
I thank my right hon. Friend for making the most valid point that for generations to come, working people across these islands will be paying for this borrowing for excess greed. The UN Secretary General has described it as utterly “grotesque” and “immoral” to be making excess profits on the back of fossil fuels. What I have heard from the Government is more of the same. My question is whether the Government have, despite their ideology that profits must be made regardless, put any conditions on those excess profits and on what those companies will do to invest in a rapid transition to save future generations from the climate catastrophe.
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In that context, we are doing what we can with the devolved powers that we have.
I say to the Government that one thing we have done is to introduce the game-changing Scottish child payment, which will increase to £25 a week and lift 50,000 children in Scotland out of poverty.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Blackford
I need to make progress.
We are all too aware, however, that that is nowhere near enough to mitigate the effects of the crisis, because most of the key economic levers lie here in Westminster. If the new Prime Minister is serious about helping everyone through the winter, she should at least lift universal credit by £25 a week. Although I welcome her remarks about those who are off grid, we must be given clarity about support for those across swathes of rural Scotland who rely on oil heating and are not subject to the price cap.
Clarity is also needed for those who have accepted fixed-term contracts at a higher rate in a bid to weather the storm. They must be allowed to switch to benefit from the support that has been put in place. Crucially, vital support for the most vulnerable must go hand in hand with the UK Government increasing the budgets of the devolved Administrations, or granting them greater powers to borrow, so that they can do more to help all public service workers and the most vulnerable.
Barry Gardiner
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is making a broad and apposite speech. He was challenged on the rate of tax that he believes is appropriate, but he will know that prior to the introduction of the windfall tax, the UK had the lowest tax rate of any oil and gas producer in the world. He was challenged on 65%, which is actually 6% below the average of all producers in the world. If he were prepared to go to the global average, it would still mean that relief could be given to taxpayers in this country.
Ian Blackford
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention makes an awful lot of sense. We should reflect on the fact that oil and gas companies are making additional profits not because they are improving their businesses or investing, but simply because oil and gas prices are higher. It is right in that context that our consumers and businesses are compensated. Why on earth are we sitting back and allowing the oil and gas companies to engage in billions and billions of dollars of share buybacks?
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Blackford
I will make progress, because I am conscious of time and those who want to speak.
I will briefly deal with another prominent point in the Prime Minister’s speech. She blames the cost of living crisis on the war in Ukraine and I believe that that is worth expanding on. Of course, there is no doubt that what has happened in Ukraine has played a major role in spiralling wholesale prices, and we have rightly come together across the Chamber in condemnation of Putin’s horrific war and his actions to thwart European energy supplies. I look forward to continuing to work with the new Government in a spirit of consensus on this issue. We all stand together against Putin’s horrible actions and the war in Ukraine.
As we have rightly helped Ukraine, however, we must also help citizens at home. Indeed, we owe it to them to do so; I hope that the Prime Minister will reach consensus with me on that point. Where we divide is my belief that we must recognise that other countries in Europe, which are far more reliant on Russian gas than the UK, have weathered the economic storm far better than the United Kingdom. We must therefore recognise the UK Government’s role in creating the circumstances for the crisis. Shameful mismanagement by successive Tory Governments, topped by a Tory Brexit, means that the UK has the highest inflation in the G7 and the lowest growth in the G20, and that we are marching headlong into a recession. UK household electricity prices have surged ahead of those of our European peers, and the UK is now in a deeper state of crisis than most, because of the damaging choices that have been made.
Patricia Gibson
For my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, who live in difficulty, the most important aspect of today’s announcement is that they were waiting to hear of help with their fuel bills, but they were instead told that their fuel bills will rise. They will be bitterly disappointed by that. Nothing has been offered to them today. Does my right hon. Friend agree with their disappointment?
Ian Blackford
Yes, I do. We need to reflect that energy bills are rising in an energy-rich Scotland. The damage done by the UK Government’s choices—choices that have been imposed on us—make the choice about Scotland’s future ever clearer. Scotland is energy rich, so we simply should not be facing an energy emergency. It may surprise some in this House, but Scotland produces six times more gas than we consume and almost 100% of our entire electricity production comes from renewables. That is not attention-seeking, I would say to the Prime Minister; these are the facts. Scotland has the energy, but we just simply do not have the powers. We are stuck in a UK market that prices our electricity on the basis of the price of wholesale gas, and the power to change the system lies with Westminster.
Carol Monaghan
My right hon. Friend will also know that, although we are producing almost 100% of our energy from renewable sources, the grid connection charge—£7.36 per megawatt-hour compared with 40p per megawatt-hour in England—does not help further investment. We need these grid connection charges to be reduced, because my constituents want to know, when they can see wind turbines outside their windows, why their prices are going up.
Ian Blackford
Again, my hon. Friend makes a very important point. We are being ripped off on Scotland’s ability to deliver green renewable energy, but it is even worse than that. For those of us who live in the north of Scotland, because we have a regional distribution market, we pay a premium for the electricity that is sent south and then have to pay the highest prices to get it back. That is the cost to people in Scotland of Westminster’s control of our energy market.
What is needed—this is most crucial of all, and it is glaringly lacking in this energy plan—is a fundamental overhaul of the energy market to break the link between the cost of gas and the price of renewable and low-carbon electricity. The reality is that an independent and energy-rich Scotland with the normal powers to act in our own interests could have cushioned our economy from this cost of living crisis. Through independence, Scotland could use our energy well for the benefit of our people, so for households and businesses in Scotland the cost of living crisis is literally the cost of living with Westminster. It is a cost we can no longer afford and it is a price we are no longer willing to pay. It is why Scotland’s people will choose independence.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. There is a lot of interest in this debate, so we are introducing forthwith a three-minute time limit.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister and indeed all her colleagues to their places on the Front Bench, and the rapid action that has been announced today. I wanted to see action for consumers in my constituency, but also for businesses, charities and the public sector, and I am delighted to hear all of that included in today’s statement. Over the summer, I have heard from hundreds of constituents about their concerns—people who are vulnerable, the elderly, students and people with illnesses and disabilities—about how they will not be able to turn down their heating in the upcoming winter. The action that has been announced today will be extremely welcome in all of those quarters, and the fact that there is a two-year cap in place is particularly welcome in my constituency.
I have also been hearing from businesses, and I have been very concerned about some of the costs facing pubs, hospitality businesses and manufacturers in my constituency. Indeed, as long ago as last year, I wrote to the then Business Secretary—now the Chancellor—about high-energy manufacturers such as aluminium extrusion businesses Superform and Aeromet in my constituency and about some of our largest manufacturers such as Worcester Bosch and Mazak in relation to the impact of energy costs on them, so I am delighted that today’s announcement also means help for businesses with energy. Of course, that help for businesses with energy is also, in the long term, help for consumers.
I look forward to hearing more about the urgent work going on to support the hospitality sector, which is so important in all our constituencies, and even retailers have been affected by these issues. Toys & Games of Worcester, a wonderful independent retailer in my constituency, expects its energy bills to go up by as much as 400% later this year. Following today’s intervention, I hope that will no longer happen and that that business can continue to thrive.
As a former schools Minister, I am delighted to hear of the help for schools. It is vital that we help them to address the challenges they face with energy pressures. On that front, the intervention is important, as it is for charities. In the last week I have visited my wonderful hospice in Worcester, St Richard’s, and this week I will be visiting the children’s hospice, which were both concerned about the impact of energy bills. We have seen correct interventions in all those spaces.
There is much to welcome in this statement: the new energy supply taskforce; speeding up the deployment of clean technologies, including, crucially, hydrogen; the reduction in inflation by up to five percentage points, and the new Bank of England scheme to support liquidity in the wholesale market; and the review to ensure that net zero can be met in a way that supports business and is pro-growth, which I am delighted to hear is taking place under my right hon. Friend—and sometime lookalike—the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). I welcome the statement, and I want to make sure that we go further. In particular, I urge Ministers to consider the opportunities provided by hydrogen in helping to ensure that gas central heating continues to be delivered to our constituents’ homes in a clean, low-cost and energy-efficient way.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Although the solutions to this crisis may sound complicated in this debate, the choice is straightforward for the Government: who pays at the end of the day? Let us be clear what a windfall tax is. It does not tax profits that energy companies had planned for and could have expected in all reason. This windfall has come about, as the Government have said themselves, as a consequence of what is happening in Ukraine and the aggression by Putin. The question that I have and my constituents will have is: how can the Government reasonably come to a conclusion that it is okay for those energy companies to make these huge profits on the back of that aggression by Putin?
No matter what we do over the windfall tax, there will be a cost to the taxpayer because the Government are under pressure in other areas of expenditure. We only have to look at the newspapers today to see how, yet again, the number of people waiting for operations in the NHS has gone up to 6.8 million; and how the cost of living is forcing teaching assistants to question whether they can commit themselves to supporting children in schools or should move to higher-paid jobs, such as in supermarkets. Everywhere we look, the Government are under pressure over public expenditure on our vital public services. Yet they are prepared to wave aside the potential to pay for these increases through a windfall tax.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I am grateful that my hon. Friend mentions teaching assistants because one contacted me recently. Many low-paid workers and others on moderate incomes be staggered by the Government’s decision to put the interests of energy companies ahead of those of normal families.
Clive Efford
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are morally wrong to turn their back on a windfall tax when they are clearly under financial pressure in other areas of public expenditure.
In my brief contribution, I want to raise one specific issue relating to my constituency. I have a craft bakery that has survived for 100 years and is about to celebrate its centenary. It has been run by six generations of the same family. It kept feeding people in my constituency—I was not the MP at the time, I hasten to add—during the second world war, so even the Luftwaffe could not shut down this bakery. It employs 20 members of staff, in an industry where energy use is really heavy, and faces cost increases of 300% or 400%, so it is trying to renegotiate its energy contracts. As the statement published by the Government says—I have it here; on such an important crisis, its sheer length is 200 words—there will be assistance for businesses equivalent to that given to individuals, guaranteed “for six months”. The Prime Minister said—I wrote these words down—that businesses would be given some idea of what assistance they will get “within three months”, but they are negotiating now. We had no clarity from the Prime Minister in her statement. It was as though she was making a Queen’s Speech—“My Government will”—but she gave us no detail on what Ministers will be doing.
One thing I want a guarantee on is that, if we are to get a financial statement from the Government next week or before the conference recess, we will have a proper debate in this Chamber, as we are required to have. Or will the Government avoid scrutiny—as has been a repeated action—yet again?
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I rise broadly to welcome these measures. We know that we live in terribly difficult times. Yesterday the Treasury Committee took evidence from the Governor of the Bank of England and other members of the Monetary Policy Committee, and the point was made that the impact of the energy price rises on households is about four times that which occurred in the 1970s. These are truly frightening times, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has come forward with such a bold package of measures for consumers and, critically, for businesses over the next six months, with a review after three months. I was pleased to see the Bank of England liquidity facility for energy businesses totalling £40 billion, which I think will be important for the functioning of the marketplace, as well as the critical commitment to review the way that the pricing of our electricity is determined, whether in relation to gas or to the underlying costs of alternative means of energy production.
I also want to focus briefly on the macroeconomic issues, which are easy to overlook. This is a huge intervention. The Prime Minister detailed that the Chancellor will come forward with costings at the emergency fiscal event that he is soon to present to the House. Alongside the tax reductions that have been mooted, plus other pressures on the public finance, it means that debt will almost certainly increase, as will the deficit. It has been stated that inflation will be assisted by these measures—that is true; inflation is just a measures of price rises relative to a previous period at a particular point in time. Although downward pressure on the consumer prices index from these freezes will be positive, it will be a stimulus to the economy and, through time, net inflation may increase. That will require a response from our central Bank, which might see interest rates increase in the more medium term, with increased servicing costs for our debt. We must see this very much in the round, and that is where the debate on the windfall tax should at least be considered. The Treasury Committee will be looking at that in some detail.
My final point, in my remaining 30 seconds, is that when it comes to the emergency fiscal event, it is critical that we have an Office for Budget Responsibility independent forecast to take into account all those issues—the great uncertainty we are talking about, and the huge fiscal interventions for which the costings have not yet been presented to us. We must see what the impact of that will be on the public finances in order to reassure the markets.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Everyone will be affected by the rise in energy prices and will be looking for ways to cut back by being more careful with the appliances they use, or opting for alternative ways to keep warm and prepare meals. It is a worrying time for many of my constituents and for others the length and breadth of the country.
For some, however, the worry and fear is even greater. More than 60,000 people across the UK are in need of renal replacement therapy in the form of dialysis or a transplant. My daughter-in-law, Hayleigh, is one of those. Hayleigh suffers from kidney failure, and has done since she was 11. A transplant at 15 gave her seven years of freedom, but for the past 11 years she has been back on dialysis. Home dialysis allows Hayleigh to spend more time with her family, and has even given her the opportunity to attend university, and go to work rather than spending three days a week in hospital. However, running the machine for 10 hours at a time, six nights a week, comes at a price. The approximate cost for electricity to run the home dialysis machine is currently almost £80 per month, and with energy prices set to soar, those costs will only increase, threatening the ability of many patients to continue their life-saving treatment at home.
The charities Kidney Care UK and Popham Kidney Support in my constituency have recently contacted me about their concerns for patients, and the lack of support they are being offered by energy providers. In Wales, patients like Hayleigh are reimbursed by the Welsh Renal Clinic Network, but with the cost of extra energy needed for home dialysis machines expected to increase to £2,000 a year, the level of financial support will fall far short. The situation is even worse in other parts of the country, where reimbursement amounts vary considerably, with some patients receiving no help at all.
The cost of kidney failure and other chronic conditions should not be borne by patients. It is not only dialysis patients who are affected. Many people depend on home electrical medical equipment—oxygen concentrators, nebulisers, artificial ventilators, stairlifts, or bed and bath hoists. Add to that the additional costs for heating and lighting, and many vulnerable people will be feeling the pain of this winter. No one should be in a position where they have to cut back their use of vital equipment for fear of paying their bills. For my daughter-in-law, and for all the Hayleighs out there who are looking at uncomfortable and unaffordable increases to their bills, will the Government ensure that sufficient financial support is made available to cover that essential electrical medical equipment?
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I will keep the scope of my comments brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, given the time available. The written statement included confirmation—the Prime Minister also confirmed this—that the Chancellor will set out the expected costs as part of the fiscal statement. Will those costs include the Government’s assumptions for how wholesale prices will move over the coming months and years? Yes, it is an estimate, but we have to make assumptions to calculate the cost. Secondly, and importantly, will the estimates of the cost of that package be independently scored by the Office for Budget Responsibility, or will they simply be the Government’s assessment of costs? It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm which of those it will be when he responds to the debate.
I welcome wholeheartedly confirmation from the Prime Minister that people who are off the gas grid will be protected by this announcement. A full 40% of my constituents are off the gas grid, and I believe the number is broadly similar in the Prime Minister’s constituency. It is great to have confirmation that they will be helped, but a bit more detail on process is important. People who buy oil or liquefied petroleum gas tend to buy it in lumps—they have to fill a tank. If they were to place an order today, for example, to ensure they have sufficient energy, they will need to know whether the costs of that order will be covered by the price guarantee, or whether that will be only for deliveries that take place after 1 October. Although the details may need to be worked through, confirmation about that is incredibly important. It would be terrible if someone on a low income made a very expensive purchase today, and then discovered that they had inadvertently cut themselves out of help. Equally, we do not want people running out of energy by delaying those purchases.
My final point is to flesh out what I said in my intervention on the Leader of the Opposition. My understanding is that over half of the £170 billion excess profit includes profits made by foreign companies on energy supplied to the United Kingdom. It is not within the scope of the Exchequer to tax that. Secondly, we already have a windfall tax. We are already taxing excess profits at a total rate of 65%. That windfall tax has been legislated for by this House, and it will stretch forward to December 2025. I do not really know what the Labour party is arguing for, and I noticed that after my intervention, the Leader of the Opposition would not say what rate he thought a windfall tax should raise—65% seems quite high to me, and it would be helpful if Labour could confirm what it believes it should be.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Following the earlier statement from Mr Speaker, I think our hearts, thoughts and prayers will be elsewhere, but I wanted to contribute to the debate and to agree with the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and his questions on heating oil. That is a critical issue for people in rural communities, and we need answers immediately.
What the Prime Minister has announced is not a freeze on people’s energy bills. In the middle of a cost of living emergency, the Conservatives are choosing to put energy bills up by another £500 for struggling families. That hike in people’s energy bills comes on top of the £700 rise we saw last April. Struggling families will be paying twice as much for energy as they were last year, and people will still be desperately worried about how they will keep warm this winter. Last May’s £400 discount will simply not make up for the enormous rise in energy bills. So where is the new support for families and pensioners who are struggling? Under the Prime Minister’s plan, fuel poverty will get worse, not better.
I turn to how we think the Prime Minister is proposing to pay for the package. Why does it seem that the Government will be handing an eye-watering bill to taxpayers in the form of higher borrowing? We all know that that ultimately means higher taxes for taxpayers, and particularly for our children. That does not seem conservative, and it does not seem right. Why has she rejected the alternative of a windfall tax on today’s oil and gas giants, who are raking in enormous, unexpectedly high profits thanks to President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine? How is it fair to take money from future taxpayers—from our children—and hand it to today’s oil and gas barons? How is it responsible to borrow so much to pay for consumption when our economy is already in such a mess, with the pound falling so dangerously?
The fair and responsible energy policy would be to increase investment massively in the cheapest and most popular forms of energy available to us: wind and solar. I was absolutely shocked that the Prime Minister did not announce a massive, fast expansion of renewables to bring people’s energy bills down.
The Prime Minister has made some alarming choices today by rejecting cheap wind and solar power, raising energy bills even higher than they are now, refusing to give extra support to struggling families and pensioners, and paying for a policy with higher taxes on our children instead of a windfall tax on fossil fuels. Those are the wrong choices.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I start by saying: may God bless our Queen. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
I sincerely welcome the announcement—it is fantastic that we have seized the massive problem that is facing us—which will give relief to so many households and businesses who have been terrified by the prospect of what was to come. I am convinced that that reassurance will be greatly pleasing to them.
I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about some really low-hanging fruit that I do not think we have made enough of yet. With energy prices where they are, we as a Government could do a lot more. We could, for example, go house to house—through energy suppliers; not as Government officials—to assist people with looking at how they can reduce their energy bills. There are many practical ways and great ideas for doing that, not least of which are turning down boiler thermostats—people should not do that themselves at home—to make more effective use of energy and turning down the hot water tap pressure. Those things are really low-hanging fruit that could be done tomorrow, and forecasters suggest that they could save up to 10% off energy bills.
Most important of all is insulation. Current energy prices are a game-changer for insulation. Recent research suggests that £1,000 could pay for basic cavity wall or loft insulation for the average household and that the sector could insulate up to half a million homes this winter and 1 million homes next year. That could be cost-neutral to the Treasury as it would not be paying the excess for the price cap. With energy prices at current levels, it is worth looking again at massively ramping up household insulation.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I will not give way because there is so little time.
Finally, as Business Secretary and then as chair of the 1922 Backbench committee on business, energy and industrial strategy, so many businesses have said to me, “We cannot get a grid connection for our solar panels, so there is no point in doing it.” I would say to them that, with energy prices where they are, they could get themselves a battery and have some internal energy independence. Many businesses should be looking at that. The Government’s role should be to provide advice through the energy suppliers.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) with regard to dialysis patients. My late mum was on dialysis due to her sickle cell—she dialysed three times a week—and one reason why she did not want to switch to home dialysis was its cost. Many sickle cell and dialysis patients who will need to have their heating on this winter will be worrying so much about how they will pay their bills.
On what the Prime Minister announced this morning, without the right action from this Government, the next few years will be fraught with so many difficulties for my constituents in Vauxhall. The decisions that the Government have made today will impact them for many years to come. I hope that the Prime Minister and the new Government will have that in mind as they make decisions about the next few years.
Solving the energy crisis is the first test of the new Government. Will they make the big decisions on the oil and gas firms who are making record profits while people up and down the country continue to suffer? Will they be fiscally responsible and do everything in their power to lower the burden on future generations? Will they support families who are already making desperate choices between putting food on the table and heating their home? I am afraid to say that, on the basis of the Prime Minister’s announcement and what we have heard from the Government, the answer is a resounding no.
For many of my constituents, the cost of living crisis did not start when Ofcom raised the price cap last month. For many, it did not even start when Russia invaded Ukraine earlier this year. The squeeze in their wages, which have not been keeping up with prices, has been a feature of the Government over the last few years. Households have been squeezed relentlessly over decades. Statistics from the Trussell Trust show that, between April 2019 and March 2020, more than 20,000 food parcels were distributed in Lambeth. The shock of the energy crisis has been severe, but we cannot keep ignoring the fact that a number of households have been left in this position as their bills continue to go sky-high.
We cannot ignore the failure to insulate homes due to failed insulation policies and the end of the Warm Front discount introduced by the Labour Government. What do we get from this Government? We get the rulebook on fracking ripped up while people continue to see untapped onshore wind potential. We get attacks on workers’ rights, with people taking to losing a day’s pay—more in some cases—to fight for wage increases and their rights. We see scraps of policy on insulating homes as our homes continue to bleed the energy that they need. That bears the hallmark of the incompetence of the last 12 years of this Conservative Government.
We cannot afford to go on like this. Enough is enough. We need a sea change with the Government recognising the issues faced by people in Vauxhall and up and down the country. We need a sea change, and we need a new Government.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, which set out two broad areas. First, we have the immediate support that she will give to so many people around the country as well as to businesses. Like many hon. Members—perhaps all hon. Members—I have had many constituents getting in touch to say how concerned they are about the cost of energy now and how fearful they are about the cost of energy this coming winter. The decisive action that she has taken is therefore incredibly welcome.
Secondly, I would like to highlight the Prime Minister’s longer-term vision. Much of the current problem is caused by the invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin and the Russian army. However, we can also look back to the oil crisis of the 1970s and see that if we are dependent on foreign sources of energy for heating our homes and powering our industry, we will always be in a vulnerable place. I therefore welcome her ambition for the United Kingdom to be a net exporter of energy by 2040. That is a hugely positive ambition for the United Kingdom, for our industry and for the sector.
I would like to emphasise that nuclear needs to form a key part of the United Kingdom’s energy sector. It is reliable baseload energy that we can depend on come rain or shine. In the north-west of England, right across the three counties of Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria, there is huge talent in the sector, and by investing in that and giving the sector more security, we will protect and secure those jobs. I think also of the Springfields nuclear fuels plant near Preston. We need security for that plant to ensure that it can maintain itself and maintain its staff, the skilled engineers and skilled apprentices, on that site. We need to secure that site and many other places in the north-west of England. Warrington and the wider area also has an enormous wealth of talent.
Mike Amesbury
Does the hon. Member share my concern about one of the announcements, on fracking? I am quite confident that my community will not accept it. I know the hon. Member’s constituency of Bolton West and the beautiful rural idylls surrounding it. Does he feel that it will accept it?
Chris Green
The Prime Minister is committed to respecting the views and values of local communities, and I support that. However, in the short time I have in which to contribute I am trying to focus on nuclear energy.
We want that commitment in the north-west but also in Hinkley Point C, which is a phenomenal site and a phenomenal investment in our United Kingdom. I want our commitment to nuclear energy and the phenomenal workforce at the Hinkley Point C site in Somerset to go on to the next nuclear project and a whole series of nuclear projects, whether full-scale nuclear reactors or small modular reactors. There is huge potential and ambition, which the Prime Minister will set out and the Business Secretary will give more detail on. That is immensely positive for so many different parts of our country. I also particularly welcome the location of Rolls-Royce SMR headquarters in the city of Manchester.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Just before we move on, I say to Members that there is absolutely no problem with there being interventions. However, I would advise sticking to the three minutes, because not everybody is necessarily going to get in. Interventions mean that the speaker gets an extra minute, and that means an extra minute off somebody else. Please do take interventions, but I would really appreciate it if colleagues then stuck to the three minutes.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I echo the best wishes to Her Majesty.
The new Prime Minister takes up her role at a moment when the country is facing a series of multiple crises of staggering proportions, including a likely recession and, let us not forget, the accelerating climate emergency, which, in the words of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, means that there is
“a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future.”
This moment, therefore, required bold, visionary thinking grounded in compassion, not cold and outdated economic dogma. It called for a retrofit revolution, a massive investment in home insulation and renewable energy upgrades that could finally deliver warm homes and lower bills. I was staggered that the Prime Minister did not mention once the demand-side measures that need to be put into the communities around our country, so that people can finally have lower bills and warmer homes.
What this moment did not call for were measures that would lock us into further dependence on fossil fuels. While Putin’s war in Ukraine has accelerated the crisis, fundamentally it is one caused by our dependence on gas, and it will not be solved by extracting more gas. It certainly will not be solved by a resumption of fracking, which would be a disaster for the climate and a measure which, as her own Chancellor admitted barely six months ago, would do nothing to lower energy bills and would fail to produce enough gas to meet even 1% of our needs for more than the next three years.
Coming on to the detail of the Prime Minister’s support package, I welcome the fact that she has finally acted on a price freeze, but the measures are nowhere near enough. They are poorly targeted, and without a substantial package of additional support they will fail to support millions of low-income families who are already in freefall. They cannot cope with current prices, never mind an increase. That is why my party would return the price cap to its more affordable rate of last October. The measures do nothing to incentivise a reduction in energy demand by those who can do that. Most staggering of all, as we have heard about so much, they allow the oil and gas companies to get off scot-free, despite the Treasury’s own documents showing that energy producers are in line to make £170 billion in excess profits over the next two years.
What we need to do is scrap the shameful investment allowance, put in a windfall tax that is proportionate to the crisis we face and make that the first step towards a permanent carbon tax on oil and gas companies to reach, at the very least, the global average of 70%. That would bring the UK in line with countries such as Angola and Trinidad.
I welcome the fact that the Government have been consulting on decoupling the price of renewables from gas—that would be a game-changing step—but I also want to ask the Prime Minister to make a massive investment in renewable energy. Renewables are a staggering nine times cheaper than gas. There are 650 wind and solar projects oven-ready and waiting. That is the way forward, not putting us into more and more fossil fuels. Finally, will the Government look at measures such as a rising block tariff approach, which would be much fairer in the future?
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
While the thoughts of the House are first and foremost with Her Majesty the Queen this afternoon, it is important that we take the opportunity to debate these challenges today.
I welcome the speed with which the Government have moved to bring forward a very strong package of measures that have been announced today. I welcome the substance of the package. It provides a very strong platform to help get families through this immediate price crisis. For me, it meets the test of scale, it meets the test of timeliness and it provides certainty for those families who, frankly, have been living in a state of anxiety thinking about the enormous bills coming their way. I welcome the assurance from the Prime Minister today that the package will cover everybody and that there will not be gaps. It will cover the more than 50% of households in my constituency that have homes off the gas grid and rely on heating oil and liquified petroleum gas. I also want to ensure that people who live in park homes can access the support they need and that there are no gaps.
I still think we will need to take further measures to strengthen some of the social protection for those on the very lowest incomes, despite the measures that have been announced today. I think there are some easy wins for the Government on freezing or limiting the deductions we take from people’s social security payments. We should look again at the benefit cap and, most importantly, it would be good for the new Administration to reiterate the commitment of the previous Government to a full social security uprating in the new year.
It is important that the measures also cover businesses. I have heard from so many small businesses in my constituency during the summer, particularly food manufacturers, breweries, and hospitality and tourism businesses. For them, this is an existential issue. These are good businesses, but if prices go the way that are being predicted, then thousands of good companies up and down the country in all our constituencies will be put out of business.
Finally, I strongly welcome the measures announced today on the strategy for improving UK energy supply. A number of Members have raised different energy sources that they want more movement on. I will just flag up the enormous opportunity that is opening up on the Celtic sea, with floating offshore wind. This is a really good, timely moment for the Government, working with the Crown estate, to accelerate progress on those projects. However, none of that, including the new nuclear power stations that some Members want to see, is an immediate answer. There are not many levers immediately available to the Government this winter, with a potential energy supply crisis. We are looking at gas supply, and I encourage the Government to sharpen their strategy on the procurement of more liquified natural gas cargoes, so we can guarantee that we can get the energy coming into our system to keep the lights on this winter.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Some of the announcements are welcome, particularly the focus on people who are not on the grid. I would like to highlight to the Government Front Benchers—I hope they will go away and seek more clarity on this—the people who resell energy. They are often landlords in blocks who buy the energy on the commercial market and resell it to their tenants. The Government have never explicitly mentioned that. They have talked about heat networks, which is if the landlord is running a boiler, but not about landlords they are supplying the electricity directly to a flat. Those meters are not on the official meter grid and they will not even be eligible for the £400 support from the Government unless action is taken. There needs to be some urgent action to ensure that landlords can purchase at fair prices and that they pass them on. At the moment, the landlord has to pass the cost on at the purchase price. I am not saying that landlords are gouging, but there is a problem that the purchase price is a commercial price, not a residential price. I hope the Government will come back with clarity on that.
The reality is that this package is still a £500 increase on what energy bills are today. This is not a reduction; it is an increase. It did not need to be like this. We could have regulated the wholesale market price, and the Government could have stepped in and offered loans to energy companies to bridge the gap for the gas they are importing. That could have been the offer, with the debt put on the energy companies and not the state, but that is not what has been put forward. The Government could have fixed energy prices at what they are today and made interventions, but we have not seen that either. Therefore, there are real difficulties relating to who pays. Does this come from the profits of the companies or is it done on the backs of the people? I am afraid that the wrong choice has been made, because future generations, and even this generation in future years, will pay for this policy. That does not seem right.
Improvements of efficiencies were mentioned slightly but not enough. We need a house-to-house, street-by-street approach to insulation—as my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), has called for—to get this right. Leaving it to the market does not work. We will not get the efficiencies of scale. Labour has put forward a plan to start that process, but even more ambition is needed.
We also need to look at the production of wind energy not just offshore, but onshore, and having solar panels on our roofs. At the moment, the solar panel feed-in tariff is less than the cost of buying energy directly from the market. That does not work; we need to reverse it. We need to give people the incentive to pay into the grid at a fair market price—
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
All summer, like many Members, I have been hearing from households, businesses, schools and other public sector organisations and community centres that have been worried about their energy bills going up fivefold, in many cases. I therefore warmly welcome the speed and ambition of the package, which will bring much certainty to businesses and peace of mind to households and others.
I welcome the fact that we were clear about the discretionary funding that will be provided for users of heating oil, of which I have many in my constituency. I also welcome the reform of the electricity pricing market, so that non-gas power producers are more fairly priced, which will lower the cost for many users. The clarity that has been provided for those who are switching contracts and will not face exit penalties will, again, be very positive for many.
Instinctively, I would have preferred a targeted support programme. However, from the work that I have been doing over the past 12 months and longer in the Treasury on the cost of living, I will say that there are challenges with that approach. We know where all the people are who use energy and who are on benefits, but we do not know much about middle-income people. We tried, through a council tax band approach, to target this a bit more, but it is imperfect, so I think the universal approach that has been adopted is right, because we cannot let middle-income households go to the wall. The truth is that when energy prices are going up by so much, there are many people outside the benefit system who may be on £30,000 or £40,000 who would be struggling hugely without this programme.
We cannot deny, however, that there are problems when price signals are distorted through price controls. I was therefore very pleased to hear the Prime Minister talk about energy efficiency and energy security and supply, which will be critical if we get through this period.
I want to come back to the windfall tax and the £170 billion that Opposition Members have mentioned multiple times They know that those profits are not being made here and are not taxable. I know they know that because they set out their plans a week ago and they wanted to recoup only £8 billion from the oil and gas companies. If they truly thought that £170 billion was up for grabs—we know how much they love grabbing profits—why did they not set out £20 billion, £30 billion, £50 billion or even £100 billion? It is because they know that that is not possible. Actually, we did introduce an increase in their taxes. Oil and gas companies are paying not the 19% corporation tax that other companies pay, or even the 40% that they pay normally, but 65%. Two thirds of their profits are coming into the tax system. If they can invest as much of the rest of it as possible, that is what we will need for long-term solutions to protect our households, businesses, schools, charities and more.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Ddirprwy Lefarydd. Hoffwn ddanfon dymuniadau gorau i’w Mawrhydu’r Frenhines. I, too, would like to send my best wishes to Her Majesty the Queen.
Today’s announcement shows beyond doubt whose side the new Prime Minister is on. She is prepared to force taxpayers to carry the burden of borrowing billions of pounds to subsidise the shareholders of energy companies that are profiting from Putin’s war. It is shocking that she cannot even tell us how much that burden will cost today. I urge her to think again. Make energy companies pay their fair share. The global energy norm of energy profit taxation is 70%. Norway stands at 78%. Why does the population of the UK have to suffer the combined yokes of higher taxes, worse public services and falling real wages while private profit is protected under her premiership?
We should use that money to return the energy price cap to the pre-April level of £1,277 a year and extend that cap to small businesses and charities. People are struggling now. Even at current prices, 180,000 households in Wales are forced to struggle even to afford items such as heating, food and toiletries. Bills of £2,500 are unaffordable for many, many people.
Anything short of £1,277 as a cap will fail to meet the scale of the crisis that we face. It will require the Prime Minister’s Government—this is important—to introduce additional packages of support for vulnerable households, including doubling the £650 cost of living payment and revising the eligibility criteria to include those on disability benefits who are currently excluded from support. That will cost us more in future if we do not deal with what is genuinely facing us. Instead of pursuing fantasy economics of rampant deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, the Prime Minister must also prioritise a reduction in energy demand and investment in low-carbon sources. That is the only way to bring down energy bills in the medium and long term.
Let me be clear and simple. It is time to unchain Wales’s renewable and low-carbon energy potential by vastly improving our grid capacity; bringing forward small modular reactors at Trawsfynydd in my constituency, Wylfa and other places; empowering the Welsh Government to deliver large-scale, transformative infrastructure projects, such as tidal lagoons; devolving management of the Crown Estate to Wales; and enabling community energy schemes to realise their full potential by selling their power directly to local customers. For us in Wales, it is clear that, in the long term, to fix this crisis for good, we must place our energy system and its huge potential in the hands of the people of Wales, for the benefit of the people of Wales.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Given the announcement earlier, I also send my best wishes and the best wishes of all those across Watford to Her Majesty the Queen.
The announcement on energy costs today was very important. Over the summer, I spent lots of time volunteering with organisations, from the citizens advice bureau to working in the British Heart Foundation shop, and I heard at first hand about the challenges and fears that people have about the fuel crisis and their bills. We heard today about a significant package that will not only help people immediately, but deal with the long-term challenges, and we are making sure that the proposals work economically. As we all know, windfall taxes are a one-off—potentially a two-off, if we can call them that. However, once we get to the third or fourth try, they will not work, so we need something that works immediately and in the long term and which puts us on a competitive footing around the world.
We heard an important point about the fact that, by 2040, we want to be a net energy exporter. That means many things, including not just, importantly, our fuel security, but investment in jobs, investment in education, investment in skills and investment in business to make sure that we look ahead to the long term, so that we are not in this situation again—we do not want to be—and to help other countries around the world not to be in this position again.
I will make a final point, because I am conscious that you would like short speeches, Madam Deputy Speaker—and if anything, I am short. I studied physics at university—I am probably one of the few MPs who studied nuclear physics as part of my course, not that I was that great at it—and I think that the talk of moving forward with nuclear is so important. There has been a negative image of nuclear over many decades. The opportunity to have small modular reactors across the country that enable us to have safe, green energy that entire communities can rely on is essential. That is also about an infrastructure of skills and education.
I massively welcome this package and think it is the right one. There is more to do, of course—as always—but I welcome this debate. We can be certain of one thing, which we need to say to all our residents who are fearful of what may come: this will support them in the short term. Although people may disagree about the long-term approach, this will support them now and in winter and they should feel reassured that they are going to be okay.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
When people talk about famines, they think of food shortages, but in fact famines are a combination of higher prices and lower wages. We are approaching famine conditions in Britain because after 12 years of UK austerity, with cuts in services, frozen wages and the devaluation of the pound, our people are much weaker facing the tsunami of price rises that we have seen from Putin’s brutal war.
The response from the oil companies, of course, is that their operating costs are just the same but their prices go up. They make windfall profits. They have picked the pockets of British people, and we demand our money back. There is a sort of windfall tax at the moment; as has been said, it should be continued at international rates so that people do not face yet another £500 coming out of their household budgets. Millions of people are in desperate poverty and simply cannot afford that.
The Prime Minister rightly talks about growth, but what she needs to remember is that the OECD has found that there is less growth if there is greater inequality. At the same time, she talks about giving back national insurance so the bottom 10% get an extra £7.60 and the top 10% get £1,800. In other words, she will increase inequality by putting more burdens on households, giving the rich more in tax giveaways, including national insurance, and not taxing the excess and unjustified profits of big corporations.
The OECD has also found that growth is very much linked to the education of the poorest. The Government’s ambition is simply to get education spending up to 2010 levels by 2024, but they will not even achieve that because of inflation. Coretta King famously said that poverty is a child without an education. We have seen education standards falling throughout the pandemic, particularly for the poorest, so we need to invest. Meanwhile, the Government are provoking a trade war with the EU over the protocol, Bank of England rates are likely to go up, and they are provoking strikes with the trade union movement.
What we want is growth. What we saw with the Labour party in the 10 years to 2008 was 40% growth in the economy that allowed us to double investment in education and in health. Had trend growth continued at Labour Government levels, the average income in Britain would have been £10,000 higher, so there would have been more resilience to the external shocks of the pandemic and the energy crisis. We need to think about that, and we need to invest in hydrogen instead of fracking and in renewables instead of more and more oil.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I join all colleagues, here and not here, and everyone in Gloucester in sending the warmest wishes of support to Her Majesty the Queen and to members of the royal family.
Today’s announcement, which was made within 48 hours of the new Government being formed—no small achievement—will bring huge certainty and reassurance to residents in my constituency and elsewhere, to those living in park homes, to charities and to those across the public sector, as well as to the small businesses in particular that are already suffering. It is critical, because it puts a cap on the maximum average energy bill. The crucial word is “maximum” because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) said, there are huge advantages in a programme of advice and best practice being led by the Government and helping us all to reduce our energy consumption. Schools, for example, could hugely benefit from solar panels that could sell all the energy generated during the long summer holidays into the grid, thereby bringing their annual bills down considerably.
There are lots of good things to welcome in today’s announcement, but there are a few things in particular that I would like to raise with Ministers. First, the green levies that will now be temporarily suspended have already been committed elsewhere. Who is going to pay for them now? Presumably it is the taxpayer in general.
Secondly, the national insurance contribution increase was predicted to raise £36 billion over three years for health and care budgets. How will that be delivered now? The task before our new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is big on generating better outcomes, but reducing the inputs will surely make that harder.
Thirdly, there is the contribution of energy companies. We have heard a lot today, quite rightly, about how they are already paying some 66% tax in real terms. None the less, there is a huge difference between profits, which are good, and war profiteering, which is bad. The new Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy could shed light on how the energy companies are to contribute to this national challenge.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) said that the rules on fracking would be completely ripped up. I do not think that that is the case, because the crucial barrier is local support, which has been conspicuously absent so far. I doubt that we will see any real change in practice.
There is one last thing to add. A lot has been said about the welcome commitment from this Government to nuclear and renewables,
“to embrace diverse sources of energy.”
May I encourage the new Secretary of State to follow the great example of his predecessor in supporting marine energy?
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I paid particular attention to the very small note that came out from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy earlier, especially the line that says:
“This will save the typical household £1000 a year.”
One thousand pounds a year? It is almost as if the cap that is being put in place at £2,500 a year is not double what energy prices were just last summer. It is almost as if the Government do not understand the sheer scale of the financial problems facing households right across the country. It is not just about energy prices. Inflation is at a 40-year high, interest rates are at a 30-year high and wages are at a 20-year low, yet we are being told that we should be happy about energy bills being frozen at £2,500 per year. It is absurd.
Obviously it is not just households that will struggle, but businesses. A number of businesses have been spoken about today, and I have spent most of the summer getting emails from businesses that are being utterly crippled by the costs in front of them. Up to now, the Government have not even lifted a finger, and what they are proposing will not go far enough. Businesses will continue to close because of energy prices.
This whole debate really frustrates me for a particular reason, which is that I happen to represent a constituency famed for oil and gas production. Somewhat ironically, it was the Unionist parties in this Chamber that told us in 2014 that oil and gas were running out, yet now they tell us that 100 additional new licences will be given out. Barring that irony, however, is it not absurd that energy-rich Scotland, which produces six times more gas than we use, is even having to face an energy prices crisis? Gas makes up just 14.4% of our electricity production, yet the price of that gas dictates all.
The fact that the vast majority of our electricity comes from low-carbon sources means absolutely nothing. The fact that it comes primarily from renewables means absolutely nothing when it comes to the costs being imposed on the people of Scotland by this UK Government and the continued failure of their energy policy. If the UK Government want to do just one thing, here is a suggestion for the new Secretary of State: will this Government finally decouple renewables from gas prices? That would make a huge difference, and it would not cost a single penny.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Following Mr Speaker’s announcement, I join other hon. Members in passing on my warmest wishes, on behalf of the people of Basingstoke, to Her Majesty the Queen and her family.
I warmly welcome the rapid action that the Government and the Prime Minister have taken since the new Government’s formation earlier this week—not only the short-term support that has been announced today, but the focus on long-term solutions to the problems we face. Clearly the energy price guarantee will provide enormous certainty and reassurance to many, many families, including those who have contacted me over the summer months.
I think that, following what some Members have said today, the Government will want to take some time to ensure that there is clarity about how the new energy price guarantee will sit alongside the existing energy bills support scheme, which will already be providing a great deal of support for many of the vulnerable groups to which Members across the House have referred. Both schemes will ensure that people have the support and certainty that they need in these difficult times.
Following representations that I have received from people who live in park homes and are on heat networks or who, like many of my constituents, use heating oil, I was especially pleased to hear that they would receive support. However, may I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and suggest that it would be useful to know exactly how that support will come into play?
I was extremely pleased to hear from the Prime Minister about the support for businesses, charities and public services, which will be equivalent to the support for residential properties for six months, although, again, it would be helpful to understand quickly how that might work in practice. Charities, in particular, will be planning up to 12 months ahead for how their operations will work. Many of them operate in community centres and village halls, providing childcare facilities that are essential for our residents.
Finally, may I take this opportunity to broaden the debate by encouraging the Government to bear in mind industries that have been hit by the increase in gas prices? I am thinking particularly about the fertiliser industry. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, gas is used to create fertiliser, which is why it is relevant to the debate. The scaling back of production throughout Europe means that many farmers, particularly those in my constituency—I met some of them on Friday—are sowing seed for harvesting next year without knowing whether fertiliser will be available. Perhaps the Government could make an early statement on how we will provide surety of supply, given the impact of gas prices on their production.
We are in a difficult situation, and I am pleased that the Government have acted so speedily.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. May I just point out that if Members speak for less than three minutes, we will get more of them in? I call Imran Hussain.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
We must not forget that for months this Tory Government saw the oncoming tidal wave of rising energy bills this winter, but chose to do nothing about it. For months they callously and deliberately left people in limbo, creating unimaginable uncertainty for those who face colossal energy bills this Christmas, and for months they let fear spread among those preparing to make a desperate choice between heating their homes or putting food on the table. What is worse, however, is that for months the current Prime Minister, who was a Minister in this Government for a decade, was content to go along with this grossly negligent plan of inaction, wasting valuable time when we could have been protecting people.
Today we heard the Prime Minister, at the Dispatch Box, refer a number of times to “immediate” and “urgent” support. That is disingenuous, frankly. The Prime Minister cannot suddenly pretend that she entered the Government just today. She has been a senior Minister in previous Governments for the last decade, and she could have taken action—along with the previous Government—months ago, rather than putting people through this uncertainty.
As is customary among Conservative Members, there have been a number of instances of smoke and mirrors. We have heard numerous references to a price freeze, but it is simply not true that prices are being frozen. As has been pointed out by other Members, what we are seeing is a rise of at least £500 in the price that people are currently paying, and a rise of hundreds of pounds more in the price that they were paying originally—hundreds of pounds more than my constituents can afford to pay.
There has also been silence from the Prime Minister on who will actually pay for this. What is crystal clear—the Prime Minister has spelled it out—is that those who will not pay for it are the corporate oil and gas barons who have made a profit of £170 billion. In this, her first week as Prime Minister, she has made her direction of travel absolutely clear: she will go on driving a wedge between those who continue to become wealthier and those who continue to suffer poverty, and she will always side with the big corporations rather than with ordinary working people.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
May I, too, send my deepest thoughts and good wishes to Her Majesty the Queen and her family? I am sure that the people of Dudley North will want to send theirs as well.
We know that too many people have borne the brunt of covid in recent times, and that too many are bearing the brunt of the cost of living crisis in which we now find ourselves. Some of them say to me, “Marco, what are you doing to help us? I am going to have to choose whether to turn on my hot water or feed my children.” As for local businesses, a local business owner contacted me this week saying they are having such extreme difficulties with energy prices that they feel they have no choice but to streamline staff in order to continue trading and paying their bills.
No one should ever find themselves in a position in which they have to make such choices, whether they are a business or a household. Ordinary hard-working people should not be suffering with anxiety about how they will make ends meet this winter. Like our new Prime Minister, I want to ensure that my constituents—indeed, all our constituents—have the support they need and have certainty for the months ahead. I am therefore pleased that the Prime Minister is taking immediate action to provide support and peace of mind for so many.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the words that I would like to use to describe Vladimir Putin are not appropriate for the polite company of the House, but it is because of him that we are having this debate. Of course, covid did play a large part in the cost of living crisis, but it is Putin’s bully-boy tactics that are cutting off Europe’s energy supply and plunging us into the freezing waters that we are facing. Putin does not care whether Jenny in Gornal can feed her children and get them to school. Putin does not care whether Dorothy in Sedgley can heat her home in her old age. Putin does not care whether John in Dudley has to close his business and lay off all his staff because he cannot pay his energy bill and continue to employ them. Putin just does not care—but I do, and I know that all of us here do.
Winter is coming and we know what could come with it, but it does not need to be an inevitability, and now, thanks to our new Prime Minister, it will not be. The long-term plan to strengthen and secure Britain’s energy supplies, reopening the North sea, opening up fracking and investing in nuclear, will ensure that our children and grandchildren do not face these issues as they reach our grand old ages. The new support being pledged today goes a long way to reassure individuals, families and our local businesses. Our new Prime Minister is on our side, not just in the short term but in the long term.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Earlier this week I raised the plight of households, small businesses and care homes in my constituency. I am sure that, like me, many of them will be truly shocked that it is the British public who will have to bear the burden of paying for this energy crisis while energy companies continue to make their millions. Today, however, I have a number of specific questions to put to Ministers, and I ask the Minister who will sum up the debate to address them.
The written ministerial statement refers to an equivalent guarantee for businesses. Does that include care homes, and what additional support will they be given in view of the pressure that they are under? I also want to raise the subject of women’s street safety. I have received an email from my local council, Hertfordshire County Council, saying that the bill to keep streetlights on has increased by 60% in just a few short months, and it already costs an extra £2.3 million a year to keep them on after dark. The council is not yet talking about turning the lights off, but if it does, will there be contingency measures in place to ensure that we keep crime down and that people—particularly women—are safe on our streets after dark?
I welcome the announcement of a fund to cover park homes, and people on heat networks and those who use heating oil, but how will the fund work, how big will it be, and will there be an information campaign aimed at those who can benefit from it? The Government’s own estimates suggest that one in every 100 households is impacted by that non-conventional relationship. By my calculations, that is more than a quarter of a million properties. For each of them to receive £400, there would need to be at least £100 million in that fund.
We need a revolution in renewables. RES is the world’s largest independent renewables company and is based in my constituency of St Albans. It has more than 40 years of experience and expertise. RES tells me—and Friends of the Earth agrees—that footnote 54 of the national planning policy framework stops it from installing new onshore wind farms even in areas where there are no objections from local residents. I am absolutely no fan of fracking, but it is absolutely obscene and absurd that this Government are saying that it is okay to reopen fracking if communities are okay with it, but not onshore wind. I asked them please to review that footnote.
Finally, on solar panels, in January I asked the Housing Secretary to make it a requirement for all new suitable buildings to have solar panels. The Government have not conducted the assessment of how much roof space is available, but I urge BEIS to go further than looking at the floor space that is available in these non-domestic buildings and work out precisely how much roof space is available right now to have solar panels installed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Virginia Crosbie, but let me emphasise again that if everybody spoke for just two minutes, we would have a much better chance of getting everybody in.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I share in the thoughts and prayers for our Queen and her family.
The energy crisis has hit rural communities such as mine on Ynys Môn particularly badly. On Ynys Môn, schools, shops and employment are often too far away for walking and public transport is sparse. A car is not a luxury; it is a necessity. As our farming community relies on vehicles and fuel-driven equipment, their production costs have risen significantly. We have a larger than average elderly population who need to stay warm in our sometimes harsh winters, and many of my constituents are reliant on liquified petroleum gas and gas to fuel their homes. That is common in rural communities, but there is often little local competition. With no price cap, families are vulnerable to steeply rising costs, and I am pleased that that is being addressed.
My Ynys Môn constituents need help, and they need help today and over the coming months to heat and power their homes and businesses. Our Prime Minister has now outlined her plans, and I am hugely proud of the support that we are providing to help with the immediate problem, which is on top of the £37 billion committed by the former Chancellor. We need to do more to protect the UK from such crises in the future. I know that our Prime Minister has not lost sight of the longer term while providing support in the short term, and I welcome her enthusiasm for nuclear. She has already spoken about the need to take back control of our energy security, invest now in large-scale energy production and incentivise communities to support energy production in their area.
The people of Ynys Môn, which is also known as energy island, already welcome that local production. Companies such as Morlais and Minesto have received Government backing to set up tidal energy systems off our shores. We are home to stretches of offshore wind and solar farms thanks to Government subsidies and support. We have Wylfa, once a flagship of British nuclear power with all the potential to reclaim that position following this Government’s commitment in the British energy security strategy and the new Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022. The Holyhead hydrogen hub received £4.8 million of funding in last year’s Budget. With companies such as Bechtel and Rolls-Royce keen to re-establish nuclear production at Wylfa and BP Mona looking to Ynys Môn to support large wind farms in the Irish sea, my constituency can be at the forefront of UK power generation for decades to come.
A new large-scale nuclear plant at Wylfa on Anglesey could generate enough power for every home in Wales and more, and small modular reactors could provide cheap energy to local families and businesses in shorter timescales. On behalf of my Ynys Môn constituents, let me say that it is important that the Government take into account the unique energy demands of rural communities’ in short-term support plans and that we grasp the benefit of incentivising communities to welcome local energy production so that we can secure our long-term domestic energy supply swiftly.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Six months ago, households faced energy bills of £1,300. Today, we are told that doubling that and fixing prices at £2,500 is the best we can do to help. It is not. People were struggling with their energy bills last winter and many more will struggle this winter, too, with prices doubled. Private energy profits are being put before the needs of people all while energy firms are set to make £170 billion in excess profits. This is a huge transfer of wealth with big corporations hoovering up even more of the wealth in society, paid for by millions of ordinary people. The new Prime Minister, a former Shell employee, has been frank: energy firms, in her view, should be able to keep those undeserved excess profits.
A different principle should guide us. The companies should not be allowed to make a single penny from excess profits in this crisis. That will require a package of measures from public ownership to full windfall taxes and caps on the prices at which North sea oil and gas can be sold. That should all be guided by the principle that energy should be run for the public good. The public support these policies. There are growing movements for them. The debate is not going away; today has not solved this crisis.
Today’s announcement on energy prices, without a windfall tax, does not limit the profits of the North sea oil and gas companies, and it is at great social cost. The claim that we need to protect the profits of North sea oil and gas firms to guarantee their investment is completely bogus, because they were investing when they were making their normal profits just a few months ago. They were never expecting this windfall. Taxes on oil and gas companies overseas, including in Norway’s North sea fields, are much higher than they are here, even at current windfall tax rates.
Energy security cannot be achieved by making ourselves more dependent on the expensive fossil fuels that have driven this crisis. We do not need more North sea exploration. We do not need fracking. Let us be clear: that gas will not be cheaper. It will be sold at world prices and, anyway, gas is nine times more expensive than renewables. Retrofitting would save people money and reduce our gas use, so the greater reliance on fossil fuels is quite simply ideological. The Government are using the crisis to undermine their own inadequate climate responsibilities.
The profits of fossil fuel companies are being put before the people and before the planet. This approach is quite simply failing people who are today hit by higher bills, and I am afraid that it will also fail future generations hit by climate catastrophe.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The speed and scale of the support announced by the Prime Minister is hugely welcome and, obviously, hugely necessary for the many households that simply could not have afforded energy bills of £3,500. Together with the £400 payments to each household, the £650 to those on low incomes and the £300 to pensioner households, it will make a real difference. I hope that we can have some clarification on the position of those residential properties that are on commercial meters, perhaps because they were converted from commercial businesses.
The support will also make a real difference to many businesses, whether they are energy-intensive businesses, such as those in ceramics and glassmaking in my constituency, or whether they are in hospitality. Similarly, perhaps we can have further clarification on the position for those businesses that have recently had to enter into new contracts. Will they still be able to switch to the new price cap or the support that has been announced?
Let me deal with the criticisms that have been made. There is some superficial political attraction to extending the windfall tax—of course, we already have a windfall tax set at 25% on top of the 40% tax already paid by British oil and gas producers. The attraction is more superficial and political than real and effective, because the revenue that an extension would raise would be small in comparison with the cost of the necessary support. It would affect less than half of the oil and gas we use in the UK, because that is what is produced in the UK. Making UK oil and gas production less competitive will, in the medium and long term, reduce our energy security at the worst possible time. That is something that we cannot afford.
It has also been suggested that the package will affect price signals. As a reformed economist, I know that economists can sometimes dwell a bit too much on good theory and ignore the real world, but I find it hard to credit that people would be less careful with their energy when the price cap is at £2,500 than they would be if it were £1,000 higher. Clearly there would be a huge impact if energy were free, but we are already at a level at which people are being very careful with what they use.
This is the right package, and it is an effective package. We need to get it into the pockets of households and businesses—
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Although any help is welcome, this package is insufficient by far for the poor and generous in the extreme for the rich. The perversity of having an energy-rich Scotland and fuel-poor Scots remains, and it is clear that not only will people grow cold this winter but some may well die. There should have been a full freeze, and it should have been funded through a windfall tax. There should have been action on VAT, and there are other omissions that have not been addressed and where a lack of clarity remains. We need to change the dysfunctional energy market, not just accelerate nuclear or fracking, and address the iniquities that still exist and that have not been touched, or at least made clear.
First, the injustice of prepayment meters remains: the poorest and most deprived, who are often most dependent on power and energy, are paying higher standing charges and higher tariffs. That has not been touched, while support has been given to the very wealthy, and it must end. It is easily done through a direction to Ofgem, and we all know the energy companies are capable of delivering it.
Similarly, although there is a welcome announcement that some action will be taken on unregulated fuels, a discretionary fund would be inadequate. That is especially the case in the north of Scotland, but it is also the case in my constituency. People who are off the gas grid depend on heating oil, biomass and other fuels. Those fuels should not only be covered by a fund that people might be able to dip into; the fuels should be regulated. The Secretary of State should ensure action is taken, because people in the coldest areas are the ones who will suffer.
Our dysfunctional electricity system remains. It is tied to the price of gas, yet 97% of Scotland’s domestic electricity supply is produced from renewables. We are paying sky-high prices that depend on foreign gas prices, as opposed to the price of the renewables on our doorstep and of which we have a surfeit. That is perverse, especially when, as others have said, Scotland is self-sufficient in gas.
This package simply rewards the rich; it does not address the problems of the poor. It is inadequate, and enough is enough. This is not enough to end the crisis, nor is it enough to end the action that people will take.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
My thoughts and prayers, and the thoughts and prayers of everyone in Sevenoaks and Swanley, are with Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family at this time.
I warmly welcome today’s announcement. It will relieve a huge amount of anxiety for my constituents, for businesses such as Donnington Manor that are worried about being crippled by prices, and for schools such as Dunton Green Primary School whose energy bills are going up by 500%.
I am glad that heating oil and heat networks are included in the announcement, although I question whether those prices will be frozen. The prices have gone up extensively this year and have tripled in some cases, such as for the Bourchier Court heat network, so it would be helpful to have clarification on whether that price will be frozen or whether it will be allowed to go up, with compensation provided later.
I have previously spoken in this House about how it is illegal to cut off a household’s water supply. A water company can recoup its costs through the courts, but it cannot cut off a household’s water supply for reasons of non-payment. We should consider extending that to energy supply. There are some protections in place, and energy companies are not allowed to cut off a customer’s supply during the winter months if they live on their own, if they are of state pension age or if there is a child in the house.
However, there is not enough protection. Ofgem has shown that one in seven households on a prepayment meter disconnected in 2019, so we should look at this seriously. We cannot have that number of disconnections, and the number is likely only to go up, when there is something we can do to send a very clear message that energy consumers will be safe this winter, so they do not need to worry, if it really comes to it, that their energy supply will be cut off. There would still be the mechanism by which costs can be recouped, but there would be a safety net for everybody. I think that would go a huge way towards reassuring people.
I welcome today’s announcement, as it will really help my constituents. I hope to see further effort and work on ensuring the energy supply to households.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I, too, send my best wishes to Her Majesty and her family.
We all recognise the need to help people with their fuel bills, and there is huge support among the public for a further windfall tax on oil and gas companies. As the companies have explained, they would still have plenty of money for future investment even after paying an additional windfall tax. The point is that the money is on the table now for the Government to use to help the people of the UK with their fuel bills. Under the Government’s plan, however it is worked out, the help will be paid for by taxpayers. It is utterly disgraceful that the Government are not imposing a windfall tax to cover these energy costs.
I welcome that the Prime Minister mentioned those who are off the grid and who rely on heating oil, and those living in homes with arrangements such as the park homes on Poplar Court in Cross Hands, who are not directly billed by an energy company. All these households need to know, as soon as possible, how and when they will receive support and exactly how much it will be.
The Government have an appalling record on home insulation, energy efficiency, renewables and the transition away from fossil fuels. We have repeatedly called for a massive investment programme to insulate 9 million homes, 2 million of which could already have been done by this winter.
Investment in renewables is vital to tackling climate change and increasing energy security, but the economic case is ever stronger with these rapidly rising and unpredictable gas prices. The Tory Government have wasted years of precious time for the development of renewables, including through the moratorium on constructing onshore wind farms in England and the reduction in support for solar panels. We should have been far further ahead by now in our production of electricity through renewable means, and the fact we are not is due to this Government’s abject failure to stimulate the production of renewables.
Luckily, we have devolved powers in Wales and we were able to continue with the development of wind power, but the Conservative Government were reluctant to look at the Swansea tidal lagoon. Now, thanks to the initiative, imagination and hard work of the Labour-controlled city and county of Swansea, the project will go forward.
The Government also cut the plans to electrify the railway line from Cardiff to Swansea, and they have no plans to electrify further into west Wales, on the grounds that it would not shorten journey times. If we generate electricity from renewables, electrification would not help to tackle climate change but would bring price stability.
Words are not enough. We now need the Government to make a massive effort to increase the production of electricity from all forms of renewables: onshore and offshore wind; tidal and other marine technologies; and solar. Importantly, they also need to invest in the national grid to ensure that we can all benefit from this renewable production. We want action.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Felicity Buchan has one minute.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I warmly welcome this bold, decisive and comprehensive measure, which is exactly the right thing to do. I particularly welcome the measures on communal heating networks, which are huge in my constituency with all my mansion blocks.
I like that we are focused on self-reliance. I tried to intervene on the Leader of the Opposition, because he rightly talked about self-reliance when it comes to energy, but part of the reason why we are not self-reliant is because, between 1997 and 2010, the Labour party failed to invest in renewables and other sources of energy, so our dependence on gas went from 32% to 46%.
All the measures announced today are welcome. I welcome the commitment to net zero, and I welcome the investment in renewables.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State, Edward Miliband.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Before I address the issues in this debate, I send my best wishes to Her Majesty the Queen and her family. I know that all our thoughts, and the thoughts of the country, are with them at this time.
There are two central questions at the heart of this debate: have the Government responded to the emergency that we face in a way that is fair, and do they recognise the fundamental truth that the only way to end this crisis in the long term is to get off fossil fuels? I am afraid that, on today’s evidence, the answer to both questions is no.
Let me start by discussing the plan unveiled by the Prime Minister earlier. Labour led the way on the energy price freeze. We called for it, despite doubts, including from the Prime Minister. I am glad that she has admitted she was wrong about that, because even though there have been disagreements, we have heard throughout this debate—I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken—agreement about the scale of the emergency facing families. That is why we spent the summer fighting for the energy price freeze. However, the devil will be in the detail and people will want to see the small print. The problem is that bills still seem to be rising by at least £129 a year.
The even bigger problem, and the fundamental issue in this debate, has been who pays. The right hon. Lady has been clear that she is against a windfall tax. We know the effects of that: it means that all the costs are loaded on to the British people. Let us dispose of the argument that this issue is somehow not about higher taxes; in the end, this intervention will have to be paid for by the British people in higher taxes. So the question is not whether we are going to tax to pay for it, but whom we are going to tax.
Let us take the arguments we have heard in this debate against the windfall tax and take them apart one by one. First, we have the argument that a windfall tax will reduce investment. Is there any truth to that? As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in his eloquent speech, the BP boss says that it will not have an effect on investment; when asked what investments it would affect, he said, “None of them.” So even BP does not believe the argument the Prime Minister is mounting in defence of BP.
Next, we have heard the argument that a windfall tax cannot raise extra money beyond what the former Chancellor announced. Let us dispose of that argument, too. I gather that there is a dispute about the figure of £170 billion in excess profits. The current Chancellor is not here, but I say to the Prime Minister: publish the Treasury’s estimate of excess profits. If it is not £170 billion—we have it on good authority that it is—the estimates should be published so that we can all see them for ourselves.
Edward Miliband
I am not going to give way, because I have little time for the wind-up.
In any case, we know that tens of billions could be raised. First, there are significant resources from the windfall tax on the oil and gas companies, including through abolishing the absurd £5 billion loophole proposed by the Chancellor.
Next, we come to the electricity generators. We need to de-link the price of gas and electricity, but that will not happen for a number of years. In the meantime, these companies are making enormous profits. Onward, a conservative think-tank, said this week that up to £10 billion a year can be raised, while the Tony Blair Institute gave a figure of £14 billion. We could even have a cross-party consensus on this. Why would we leave this money in their pockets when it could help to pay for the action on energy?
The alternative that the Government appear to have adopted is to have a voluntary agreement whereby companies decide to opt in to reduce prices. I say to the House that that is a terrible proposal—it came originally from Energy UK—because in exchange for giving up some profits now, the deal will lock in higher prices over the next 15 years. This is not a good deal for consumers. A chart published by Energy UK—I am a nerd, so I read these charts—precisely sets out the fact that consumers will pay through the nose over the 15 years ahead.
The third and final argument we have heard in this debate, and indeed from the Prime Minister, is that a windfall tax is somehow unfair to business. Let me take advantage of her being present to recommend that she reads an article by Mr Irwin Stelzer, a long-time confidant of Rupert Murdoch. In my experience of Tory leaders, it is worth their while to stay on the right side of him. Mr Stelzer wrote:
“Now is the time for a windfall profits tax”.
He continued:
“People who believe in capitalism believe that private sector companies should be rewarded for taking risks...not be rewarded for happening to be around when some disruption drives up prices, producing windfalls.”
In this case, we are talking about the barbaric invasion of Ukraine.
What principle is the Prime Minister defending here? What is the hill on which she stands? Is the principle she really wishes to defend that oil and gas companies should pocket any scale of profits, however bad the political instability; that however large the crisis and however gigantic the windfall, taxation must not change; and that the British people must take the strain? That is the effect of her argument. The argument I am making is not one simply made by leftie suspects such as me: Margaret Thatcher, her heroine, imposed a windfall tax in 1981; George Osborne, whom the Prime Minister worked for, imposed one in 2011; and the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), her very close friend—[Interruption.] I think she is disavowing George Osborne, but I can understand that. As I was saying, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip imposed a windfall tax two months ago. So the Prime Minister is flying in the face of logic, fairness and common sense, and is engaging in tens of billions of pounds of borrowing that she does not need to engage in. Let us never, ever hear again lectures from the Conservative party on fiscal responsibility after the decisions it is making today.
That brings me to the longer term. Let us face facts: the only way out of this crisis is to get off fossil fuels. I can do no better than quote the words of Lord Deben this week. He said that
“if you want to deal with climate change and you want to deal with the cost of living crisis and oil and gas prices, you have to do the same things. Renewable energy and energy efficiency, they are the answers.”
I would add nuclear to that, but the central point is that solar and wind energy are nine times cheaper than gas. We cannot solve the fossil fuel crisis by doubling down on fossil fuels, but that is what the Government have done today with this announcement on fracking. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition quoted the words of the new Chancellor that fracking would make no difference to prices and would take years to come on stream. I do not know where the Prime Minister got the six months she mentioned in her statement, but the Chancellor was saying only a few months ago that it would take 10 years to get anything out of the ground on fracking.
This is where I come to the Business Secretary, whom I congratulate. He and I have known each other a long time and we have had a good personal relationship—perhaps we can form an unlikely alliance on the issues that we face. I want to make a serious point to him about some of what he has said in the past, because it relates to these issues. He has said a number of things about climate. I have been part of the work done on building a cross-party consensus on climate for getting on for 20 years in this House, and we have to look at some of what he has said about climate. He has questioned the modelling and whether there is anything we can do about the climate crisis. In 2017, he said:
“If we were to take action now, to try and stop man-made global warming, it would have no effect for hundreds or thousands of years”.
He went on to say that the cost of climate action is “probably unaffordable”. I quote those words because this is flirtation with climate denial. Never in the past 20 years have we heard these words from someone in charge of tackling the climate crisis, and we should not normalise it. The bipartisan consensus on climate change has been hard won. We have worked across parties over two decades to secure it and there is a heavy responsibility on the Business Secretary to be part of maintaining that consensus, not destroying it.
The problem for the Business Secretary, and the reason he faces that challenge, is that this problem is not just about the climate crisis, because not taking action on green energy is a recipe for higher bills. The ban on onshore wind is driving bills higher and gas imports higher, and it is terrible for the climate. The blocking of solar, which the Prime Minister supports, is driving bills higher and gas imports higher, and it is terrible for the climate. The refusal to act on energy efficiency is driving bills higher and gas imports higher, and it is terrible for the climate. There is nothing more anti-business than scaring off investors in renewables with climate denial.
In conclusion, here is the truth about this new Government, only two days in. They have revealed their true colours. We face a social and economic emergency. In such an emergency, what matters is who you stand up for, who shoulders the burden and the choices you make. The Government have chosen to stand up for the oil and gas companies, not the British people, who will pay for this action in the long-term. The Government cannot answer the challenges of energy security. They cannot answer the challenges of energy bills. They cannot answer the challenges of the climate crisis. And they have the wrong priorities for Britain.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
May I begin by adding my voice to those of other right hon. and hon. Members in wishing Her Majesty the Queen well from this House? It is a matter of the gravest concern to all of us when our sovereign is unwell.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister not only on her appointment, but on the way she has chosen to meet this energy challenge: with immediate and decisive action. I thank her for introducing this debate, for ensuring that the contents of her speech were not leaked beforehand, which shows a proper respect for Parliament, and for seeing that her policy is robustly debated in this Chamber.
I thank the Chancellor, my predecessor at BEIS, for paving the way for this announcement. I look forward to working very closely with him to ensure that households and businesses are protected this winter and beyond. I also thank the right hon. Gentleman the shadow Business Secretary for his kind words about me in his opening comments. Indeed, we have had a friendly personal relationship over some years. I hope we can continue that while having, no doubt, some less friendly debates on these fundamental issues.
We need to understand why we are here. We are here because Vladimir Putin has weaponised energy supply as part of his barbarous attack in Ukraine. Last week, he turned off the main pipeline to Europe. It is a deliberate blackmail tactic against the west. Britain’s energy system must be strengthened and diversified to protect our homes and our businesses.
As we have heard over the course of this debate, our plan comes in two parts. First, we must get our constituents safely through this winter. We know how concerned people are about expensive energy bills. Some of the projected figures have been truly alarming and we are intervening to stave off an unprecedented crisis. It would be wrong to stand by as people struggle. I give the assurance to the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) that our plan for businesses will include care homes. That is fundamentally important. It would be madness to ignore other businesses too, as they see their bills spiral out of control.
The new energy price guarantee will ensure that bills are kept down, remaining at around £2,500 a year for the average consumer. This intervention reflects the severity of the situation we find ourselves in. The Government-funded support will take effect from 1 October, saving the average household around £1,000. That will be combined with the original support we announced.
I reassure the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who raised this question first, that we will act to help people on the lowest incomes. The Government have already announced a package of support that will see 8 million of the most vulnerable households receive £1,200 of one-off support to help with the cost of living, and all domestic electricity customers will receive £400.
We know that from biscuit makers to bars, businesses are worried about their bills. The Government’s price guarantee for businesses, which will be announced shortly, will bring down energy bills for the acute phase of the crisis. All businesses on variable contracts, whose fixed-price contract is coming to an end or that have agreed a fixed-price contract recently will be eligible to enter the new Government-guaranteed contract. That will apply to businesses of all sizes and include schools, nurseries and care homes, as well as manufacturers and retail. That is the short term.
Quite rightly, Opposition Members, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, asked who is going to pay for this. The energy bills guarantee is not a direct loan to customers or to energy suppliers. However, as the price stabilises in due course, the Government will need to consider when and how to recoup at least some of the cost of the scheme. The Opposition are all for taxation, Madam Deputy Speaker. That should not surprise you, as you know the inner workings of the Labour party better than most. None the less, all we get from the other side is tax, tax and tax again. It may be that we are at the highest rate of taxation in 70 years, but the answer is always more tax. It is their only answer to any question. Even the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), the leader of the SNP, who used to be a very successful businessman, and therefore may know a thing or two about this, was advocating higher taxes. Now that he is a humble crofter, perhaps he thinks that is easier.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to the right hon. Member—we go back a long way. He is, of course, right that I have a background in the City. No doubt he has read Shell’s quarterly figures, as I have done. Off the top of my head, the return on capital employed has gone up from 3% to 13%. By anyone’s definition, that is excess profit. It is right at times such as this that we take our share of that.
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is structurally wrong. Taxes need to be certain. If we are to encourage investment—and we need investment in this country—the tax policy has to be set for the long term. We cannot retrospectively pick people’s pocket; we need to tell them what the charge will be beforehand and keep it clear.
John Redwood
Would the Business Secretary like to remind the House that the Republic of Ireland deliberately chose much lower corporation tax rates than the rest of the advanced world and collects a far bigger proportion of its economy in taxes on business than we do?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend will be glad to note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from a sedentary position, is agreeing with him. My right hon. Friend is a higher authority on this than I am, but we know that the cut in corporation tax led to an increase in receipts. Higher taxation is not the answer.
Looking at the long term, we must fix our broken energy system. We must have energy independence and become a net exporter of energy by 2040. We cannot be held captive by volatile global markets or malevolent states. We must tackle the root causes of the problems in our energy market by boosting domestic supply. We will invest in renewable energy with vim and vigour, accelerating the deployment of wind, solar and—particularly exciting, I think—hydrogen technologies. To reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), we will invest in nuclear technologies, which also provide us with cheap and clean electricity.
I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) said that her constituency is known as energy island. That is exactly what we need in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) noted that not just Ynys Môn but the whole of the United Kingdom is energy island. We must use all the resources available to us, including tidal energy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said. This is a great opportunity.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I would love to give way, but time is very short.
We are fully committed to green growth and the green industrial revolution, and to net zero by 2050, but we have to get there, and to get there we are going to need oil and gas. We are therefore going to have a new oil and gas licensing round, which we hope to launch in October. I reassure the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that we will work with communities and individuals to use shale gas as well, with the support of those who may be affected. The pause on extraction is being lifted through a written ministerial statement and will come into effect immediately. This will allow us to gather further data on seismic safety. It is fundamentally important, as any economist knows, that pricing is set at the margin. If you have more, it helps bring prices down. That is fundamental. It is not in any way contradictory to what we have said before. We will also have legislation to support people in Northern Ireland, which is fundamentally important. We must be one United Kingdom in how we do this.
I am very grateful for the many contributions that were made in the course of the debate, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), my right hon. Friends the Members for Central Devon (Mel Stride), for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), my hon. Friends the Members for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), for Watford (Dean Russell) and for Gloucester, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn, for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott). I commend the motion on the Order Paper to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I put the Question, I am very sorry that all right hon. and hon. Members were not able to get in to speak in the debate. It was very oversubscribed. I remind Members that it is important to get back in good time for the wind-ups in order to hear the responses to what people have said.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered UK Energy Costs.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Before we move on to the next business, I wish to pass on my thoughts and best wishes, and those of the people of Doncaster Central, to Her Majesty the Queen and her family.
Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill [Lords]—
Timetable
(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (13)(a) of this Order.
(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Subsequent stages
(8) (a) Any Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(9) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (8) of this Order.
Reasons Committee
(10) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.
Miscellaneous
(11) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(12) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(13) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(14) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(15) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.
(16) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(17) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(David T.C. Davies.)
Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill [Lords]
Thursday 8th September 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022 View all Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 8 September 2022 - (8 Sep 2022)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to move the Second Reading of the Bill in this role, and I welcome the new member of my ministerial team, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who will be at the Dispatch Box for the later stages of this Bill.
For a person to find out that their illness cannot be cured can be a frightening experience. As a Government, we are committed to do all that we can to alleviate the pressures facing those who are nearing the end of their lives and their families. To provide some financial security to those who find themselves in this difficult position, the Department for Work and Pensions has, since the 1990s, provided access to key benefits via what are often referred to as the “special rules”. These are benefit rules that enable people who are nearing the end of their lives to get fast-track access to certain benefits. Historically, people eligible under those rules have not had to wait as long as others to start getting benefit payments. They have not been required to go through medical assessments, and, in most cases, have qualified for higher rates of benefit. In order to access this fast-track route, people had to be assessed by their healthcare professional as having six months or less to live, and this became known as the six-month rule.
For more than 30 years, these special rules have ensured that, at this most difficult time, people have got the financial support to which they are entitled quickly and easily. None the less, since those rules were first introduced there have been significant advances in how the NHS treats and cares for people nearing the end of their lives, meaning that many terminally ill people are now living longer. Given these advances, in July 2019 the Department launched an in-depth evaluation of how the benefit system supports people nearing the end of their lives. As part of that consultation, the Department worked with those people, those who support them and clinicians.
The evaluation’s findings showed that there was consensus across all groups that the Government should extend the current six-month rule. It showed support for the DWP to adopt a 12-month end-of-life approach that would allow people in the final year of their life to claim under the special rules. An added benefit of the 12-month approach was that it would also bring greater consistency with the definition of “end of life” used within the NHS and across Government.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
May I be the first to congratulate the right hon. Lady on her appointment and say on behalf of the Work and Pensions Committee how much we are looking forward to working with her and her colleagues in the months ahead?
The Select Committee had previously suggested getting rid of the time period altogether and referring simply to people having a terminal illness, and that approach has now been taken in Scotland. Did the Department consider that in looking at this change, and, if so, what was the reason for rejecting it?
Chloe Smith
The Chair of the Select Committee makes, as ever, a thoughtful point. I very much look forward to working with him and the Committee. Yes, our evaluation did look at exactly that point. As I was just coming on to argue, our approach brings a greater consistency with the NHS, which considers people to be
“approaching the end of their lives when they are likely to die within the next 12 months.”
That consistency is an important objective. At that 12-month point, clinicians are encouraged to think about the support that their patients need, including any financial support.
A point that I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister of State will draw out at Committee stage is that we also think it is important that clinicians can be supported to make the most consistent and straightforward decisions. Of course, in many cases that is not straightforward, but we want to enable clinicians to have the best chance of making a clear decision in support of their patient. That was the evidence that our evaluation found in favour of the 12-month definition. Indeed, that has been borne out by a great deal of support for what we have since been able to announce, which the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of from the various groups that support those in their last stage of life.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for presenting this Bill, as will be my constituents in Lichfield. We are blessed with a particularly wonderful hospice, St Giles Hospice in Whittington village. Has the Department spoken to clinicians and organisers at hospices such as our one in Lichfield?
Chloe Smith
Yes, that is absolutely the case. There have been extensive conversations with clinicians and those in the hospice movement more broadly. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to all those who work in hospices such as the one he mentions in Lichfield and the many more across the country. They do such an important job in giving people comfort and support and the right care at the end of their life.
In announcing that the Government intend to move from that six-month criteria to the 12-month end-of-life approach, we have engaged very widely and endeavoured to communicate as clearly as possible so that people know what support is available.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to her new position. I welcome the changes that the Government are introducing in this Bill, but as long as one in four terminally ill people of working age spends the last year of their life in poverty, I think that we need to go further. To that end, will the Minister meet me to discuss my Terminal Illness (Support and Rights) Bill, which will require utility companies to provide financial support to customers with a terminal illness and make the employment rights of people with a terminal illness more robust at no cost to the Exchequer. In fact, it may save the Exchequer a few pounds.
Chloe Smith
I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman is engaging seriously with this very important matter. I have seen his private Member’s Bill and I know that my colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be looking at it very closely in terms of the formal response from the Government. I can say that today’s Bill is all about how to get the best type of financial support to people. I really hope that that means that he will join us in support of the principles and practice of this Bill in addition to his own campaigning work.
In April of this year, changes were made in secondary legislation to the eligibility criteria for the special rules in respect of universal credit and employment and support allowance. These changes have been well received by the key charities that are active in the area as well as by parliamentarians and the public.
The special rules definition, however, for personal independence payments, disability living allowance and attendance allowance is set in primary legislation and therefore we need to be here today dealing with this primary legislation to change the eligibility criteria in those benefits from six to 12 months. This Bill, therefore, is a single issue, two clause Bill that makes those eligibility changes for these three benefits. As I have already explained, the changes put forward in the Bill will mean that, together with that secondary legislation, those expected to live for 12 months or less will be able to access that vital support via the fast-track process rather than waiting until they might meet the current six-month rule.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
As the Minister mentioned in her response to the Chair of the Select Committee, in Scotland there have been changes to the process. It has been highlighted to me by Motor Neurone Disease Scotland that part of the challenge now is that the benefits assessment for special rules in Scotland—BASRiS—form and the DS15000 form are required to be completed by clinicians. Can she advise us on what discussions she is having, because it would be very good if we could minimise that complexity?
Chloe Smith
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We want to get the greatest amount of support as simply as possible to those who need it the most. To that end, my officials and I have been having extensive conversations with the Scottish Government. We would very much have preferred them to agree to a simpler way to ensure that we get the relevant details and the relevant paperwork. But, of course, this is not fundamentally about paperwork: we need to work together to get that support across both the reserved and the devolved benefits to those who need it most.
We are talking about thousands more people at the end of their lives who will be able to access the three benefits in the Bill and others in secondary legislation. We want a consistent end of life definition across health and welfare services that can be more easily understood by clinicians, end of life charities and patients. The alignment of the definition will allow clinicians in particular to include discussion of welfare benefits in wider conversations about what matters most to their patients, which will, in turn, be more responsive to their needs. We have already touched on how we hope that means that clinicians will be better supported by a more straightforward and simple definition.
Once the Bill is fully rolled out, between 30,000 and 60,000 more people may benefit from the special rules process each year. My Department recognises that it is essential that people are aware of and understand the changes. That is why there has been that extensive engagement that I referred to in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) with key end of life charities, hospices, medical organisations and clinical groups such as the royal colleges.
I pay tribute to the many people who have supported this work since the launch of the evaluation of how the benefits system can better support people nearing the end of their lives. Their expertise and personal experience has been crucial in better informing and enabling the important changes in the Bill. I pay tribute to all those who support patients at the end of their lives, and I am sure we would all agree that it is crucial when someone reaches the final stage of their life that they have that support. By passing the Bill today, we will provide thousands more people with vital financial support so that they can worry a little less about their finances and focus more on sharing the valuable time they have left with the people who matter most to them.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to their new posts. I thank the Secretary of State for introducing this short but important Bill.
As we have heard, the intention of the Bill is to amend the definition of “end of life” in existing legislation, extending it from six to 12 months. That will have the knock-on effect of changing eligibility for disability living allowance, personal independence payment and attendance allowance so that individuals who are deemed by a clinician to have 12 months or less to live can have fast-tracked access to those benefits. We are, of course, supportive of those changes and have chosen not to table any amendments to the Bill. However, there are a number of points I would like to raise.
First, it is somewhat disappointing that it has taken the Government so long to bring in the changes. The Department first launched an in-depth evaluation of the special rules for terminal illness as long ago as July 2019. The findings showed clear support for extending the definition of end of life to 12 months. We then had to wait until July 2021 for the Government to announce their plans to bring in the change. In April 2022—a further nine months later—the Department amended the eligibility criteria for universal credit and employment and support allowance through regulation changes. Here we are another five months on and the necessary alterations to primary legislation to do the same for personal independence payment, disability living allowance and attendance allowance are only just making their way through the House. It is a difficult but unavoidable fact that while we have been waiting for this to happen, people who could have benefited from the changes have passed away.
My second observation is that we need reassurance from the Department that fast track really means fast track, and I am grateful to the Minister of State for indicating her support for that approach. In her speech on Second Reading in the other place, the Minister, Baroness Stedman-Scott, estimated that the changes brought forward in the Bill could mean that 30,000 to 60,000 more people may benefit from the special rules. She also stated that it currently takes an average of three working days for new claims and four working days for assessments for PIP under the special rules criteria. If those turnaround times are to be maintained, there will clearly need to be a significant increase in staffing capacity in the Department. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give us today that her Department will have the additional capacity needed?
Thirdly, I know that there are concerns among clinicians and others about the accuracy with which it is possible to determine that an individual is entering the final 12 months of their life. The new rules bring the Department’s definition of “end of life” in line with NHS guidance, which is welcome. However, the NHS itself acknowledges that it is,
“not always possible to predict”,
the end of life with complete certainty.
The Motor Neurone Disease Association, which, as we have heard, has done a lot of important work in pushing for this change, makes this case very clearly. Motor neurone disease often progresses very rapidly, with one third of people dying within a year of diagnosis and around half within two years. Yet it is impossible to give an exact prognosis, as the disease is so complex and unpredictable.
Under the current rules, many people living with MND are left to navigate the standard route for claiming benefits, which is entirely inappropriate given their circumstances. Although it is supportive of the changes, the association notes it would have preferred the UK Government to follow the Scottish example and introduce a criterion with no specific time limit, relying instead on the clinical judgement of a registered medical practitioner that the individual has a progressive disease that can reasonably be expected to cause their death.
That leads us to a further point: benefits awarded under the special rules are granted for three years. Where an individual outlives their prognosis and the three years expire, they then have to make a new claim despite, in some cases, being completely paralysed, unable to speak or ventilated. That adds an unnecessary extra burden to individuals and their families and carers at an extremely difficult time.
We also need absolute clarity around how clinicians will be informed of the changes and, most importantly, how the Department will ensure that the relevant information is communicated effectively and in a consistent, sensitive and timely fashion. It is one thing to legislate for these changes, but another to ensure that they are filtering through to those who most need to understand them.
I cannot finish without recognising the incredible toll that caring for someone who is sadly at the end of their life has on family members and friends. Some unpaid carers will have given up their own job and become financially dependent on social security payments. It is imperative that they are supported and prepared for the stopping of benefits when the person they are caring for passes away. It is unacceptable that people who have fulfilled such an important role and—we should be honest here—saved the public valuable money should be left both bereaved and, on occasions, destitute.
That is, of course, particularly the case for parents. It is easy to focus on older adults when considering end of life care, but of course that is also the reality of families with terminally ill children. I echo the calls made so eloquently by Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Baroness Brinton in the other place for a wider review of the benefits available to families facing that awful situation.
For example, the families of seriously ill babies and small children do not currently have access to the mobility component of disability living allowance. Many of those children require round-the-clock care and use ventilators, monitors, oxygen and other vital equipment. Although DLA is available to all families who incur extra costs as a result of meeting the additional care or mobility needs of a child, only those with children over the age of three can receive the higher rate mobility component. I appreciate that that falls outside the scope of the Bill, but it ties in with the need to ensure that individuals and families are given as much support as possible in these most difficult of circumstances.
I finish by reiterating that we are fully supportive of this Bill. I look forward to hearing the valuable contributions that I know others will be keen to make and to this legislation’s continuing to make its way through this House.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
As the Minister at the time who triggered these very welcome changes, I am very proud to speak in this debate. I must say that in my 12 years as an MP this is definitely my proudest moment, and this legislation showed me the very best of politics and some of the more frustrating parts of politics—I am certainly free to share some of those behind-the-scenes things.
First, I pay tribute to the people who made this happen and got us here today, starting with many politicians. This was a genuinely cross-party initiative, but the three politicians who stood out the most for me were the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), who will also be making a contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) and Madeleine Moon, a former MP. Throughout the process, they were kind, sincere, very generous and incredibly patient, something I will come on to later.
The leading charities that provided many cross-party MPs with a reminder of the importance of the issue included the MND Association, Parkinson’s UK and Marie Curie. The brains behind this legislation were a combination of my private office, Dr Emily Pickett, who is the DWP’s medical policy adviser, and her team.
We configured a roundtable of the greatest, including those charities that I have mentioned, plus Macmillan, the Multiple System Atrophy Trust, Sue Ryder, the National Bereavement Alliance, Hospice UK, the British Medical Association, the National Nurse Consultant Group, the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers, the British Lung Foundation, the Queen’s Nursing Institute, the Palliative Medicine Association and the Royal College of Physicians, and many, many hundreds more people who work on the frontline in healthcare and palliative care, along with families and patients, contributed. Ultimately, that showed what can be done when Parliament is working at its best, because we have ended up with united support across the board and we are all very pleased, because this will make a genuine difference to people.
I share the shadow Minister’s frustration that it took so long, believe me. I think I went through about five sets of DWP oral questions where the official line was: “We are working at pace across Government.” Believe me, a little bit of my soul disappeared as I saw the regular reminders, predominantly from the hon. Member for Newport East, to explain just how quick “at pace” is, and as I wondered how I could come up with a slightly different variation of those words. In defence of, first of all, the parliamentary process, what would normally happen is that a Secretary of State would ask their Ministers to work out where they would like to prioritise some changes. That would be presented and then as a Department through negotiations with Treasury, particularly where things are going to cost more money, we would work out which ones we could deliver and when. If we have an idea that we want to do something, generally we try to work out how to get from A to B.
At the time, I was working for the wonderful Amber Rudd, who was just a whirlwind of enthusiasm and super sharp. Anyone who had to present their ideas to her really needed to be on top of their brief. She did not suffer fools, and this was one of the ideas that I pitched to her. Then I mentally thought, “Right, over the next three months we’ll start working up some options and work out some costs.” To my horror, the following morning, on Sky News I think it was, she announced that this was then a priority, so very quickly Emily Pickett and her team and I had to be locked away to try and come up with how we would get from A to B.
Initially, the general consensus of stakeholders is what we are now seeing proposed in Scotland. It would have been very tempting to follow that route, and certainly the intentions of the Scottish Government were good, but as they soon discovered, it is not that simple, because we are all terminally ill. Therefore, we cannot possibly give everybody the fast-track access to the benefit, because the system would be overwhelmed. It has to be prioritised for those who are within a certain period of time. What the Scottish Government have discovered is that they now have to create a whole raft of exemptions to the principle of just being terminally ill. They have now created an even more complex process than the original six months rule, which was deemed to be flawed because it was too complex.
Fundamentally, we arrived at this solution because—GPs are the best at summing this up—there is no worse role for a GP than to have to sit one of their patients down, someone who they have been supporting, and say, “We have reached the end of the road. We are now switching our focus to palliative care.” As the current system stood, the GP would have to have that conversation twice, once at roughly the 12-month point and once at the six-month point, to trigger the fast-track process through the DWP for much-needed financial support. The very simple solution was to merge the two conversations together so that it is consistent.
That had the double benefit of reducing the need for the GP to have that dreadful conversation twice, but also, crucially, of raising awareness, because after that first conversation patients and their families understandably have got a million and one other priorities to navigate in their precious final moments. At least now in that conversation, as the palliative care process is being planned, they can be made aware of this additional financial support, and in real terms this will typically reduce the period to access that support from 16 weeks to less than five days.
I understand the shadow Minister’s point about making sure that is resourced. We can be confident of that, because the process is relatively straightforward. In effect, once someone has that note from the GP, the support is automatically triggered, which is why we do not need the 16 weeks. That helps with some of the pressures and will probably save a little bit of time for those who do wait 16 weeks by lifting them out of that unnecessarily long process.
It was a frustration in Parliament that this took so long, and it was one of those where everybody agreed. I remember a Treasury Parliamentary Private Secretary lobbying me very strongly on behalf of one of their constituents, saying, “You’ve got to get this sorted.” I said, “Right, well you can take that back as a note to your own Department then, thank you very much.”
I was absolutely thrilled that, just before my final few days as a Minister, we got the confirmation that we were able to make those immediate changes to the newer benefits. I am incredibly proud, as I said, that the Bill will now sort out the final parts of PIP, DLA and the attendance allowance.
My final plea is to our Scottish friends. I regularly met my Scottish ministerial counterpart, and I put it formally on the record that I absolutely understand that they did it with good intentions. I also understand that, as a matter of principle, they always want to do something different because, in their mind, that strengthens their case for independence. What they have done, however, is create a system that is more complex, because adult disability payments remain under the UK Government’s control, so there is the nightmare scenario of still having the two things. All those stakeholders, particularly Marie Curie, would love to see the Scottish Government adopt our approach in this case, so that there is a consistent approach. Terminal illness is not a time for political divide and debate. That is my plea, so that everyone can benefit.
I thank everybody who made this possible. Everyone who has contributed will have made a genuine difference to people in their hour of need, and we can collectively be very proud.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I welcome the new Secretary of State and Ministers to the Front Bench. This Bill is a good place to start their new jobs. It is not a massive piece of legislation in its content, but its effect is seriously important for people. In welcoming it, it is important to stress that, but also to give voice to those who have suffered and had frustrations during the time that we have been waiting for this to happen.
This is a small but hard-fought step that will make the last days of life easier for the families and loved ones of those who are diagnosed with a terminal illness. Even though I still believe that the Bill does not go far enough, it is important to welcome that. Thousands of terminally ill people who were previously denied fast-track support will now get the help they need, which is hugely important.
There are also the thousands who did not get much-needed help in the time it has taken Governments to act. I heard the words of the previous Minister, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), and I will talk about some of the positive things in a moment, but all the pre-laid excuses about why it has taken so long do not cut ice with the people who have suffered. That should be acknowledged when we are talking about this important issue.
The action needed was simple: scrap the six-month rule and make life a little easier for folk who do not have long to live—or even to get their forms in—so they can receive support and advice. The ask was to get rid of the arbitrary date, which was inhumane; I still think that having an arbitrary date is inhumane, but it is better than what we had before. The moral imperative is, and always was, to just do the right and decent thing for people and give folk who are dying some dignity in whatever time they have left.
That is what the Bill will do in some measure. It will make a difference to those at the end of their lives. It will relieve the financial worries of families who have received the news that no family and no person wants to hear. Moreover, it will ensure that they get fast-track support across all social security payments for the first time.
The Bill has been a long time coming, as I have said. We have many frustrations about how it has been handled, which I will come on to, because, as I said, I think it is important to give voice to them, but I thank the staff at the Department for Work and Pensions who have worked on this policy change. In my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on terminal illness, I thank outgoing Ministers for the constructive meetings that we have had over the years on this issue.
For me, the story began in 2017 when I heard the experiences of my terminally ill constituents and what they were going through from colleagues in the incredible Macmillan citizens advice bureau in Inverness. Indeed, it resonates with me still today. It is one of the sharpest memories that I have of any meeting I have ever had in my parliamentary career. I sat in a room with these battle-hardened—and, I have to say, battle-weary—professionals trying to help people at the end of their life, and I am not ashamed to say there were tears in that room as I heard their stories.
I could not believe what I was hearing, and I had sat opposite the Government Benches and heard quite a lot up until then. Even then, I thought that surely there must be some kind of mistake here, that it was simply a policy flaw that only allowed people to claim benefits if they had a diagnosis of six months to live, and that just highlighting this would allow us to move on and get this changed for people because, as I have said, and I will say again, it is inhumane for people. But no, this was a culture of hostility—I have to underline this—in the universal credit regime.
Terminally ill people also lost a lot more than just their payments at that time. Countless terminally ill people were forced to go to work coach meetings, and others had their social security payments stopped entirely. Some of these people died from their illness having not had their support payments, or their payments had not even started. Others had actually had their payments stopped, and were told that they no longer qualified for this.
As I say, with the new universal credit regime, terminally ill people also lost their right not to find out about their terminal diagnosis. Previously they could choose not to be told of their diagnosis, and that was possible because their advisers completed the forms on their behalf. With universal credit came a change to the forms, confusion at the DWP, a litany of failures and a “computer says no” attitude to problem solving. The system was pretty miserable for terminally people before the universal credit roll-out—no one has ever accused the DWP of being particularly keen to put dignity at the heart of its operations—but after the roll-out it was beyond a nightmare for people.
Back then, I reached out to Marie Curie and, with Members from across the House, set up the all-party parliamentary group on terminal illness. We launched a truly cross-party effort to have the issues arising from the universal credit roll-out resolved, and to get this Government to scrap the arbitrary six-month rule. We joined forces with the all-party parliamentary group on MND and, working with the MND Association and Marie Curie, we launched the Scrap 6 Months campaign.
I think it is important at this point to pay tribute to the former MP Madeleine Moon, who did so much work. I believe she is in the Gallery, which is fantastic. She deserves a lot of credit and praise for the work she did in pushing this forward, and I was delighted to work hand in hand with her, as I promised I would, to try to get this issue highlighted. I must also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), who has taken up the mantle with Bills of her own. Indeed, I have had my own ten-minute rule Bill on this subject.
We had two active APPGs, a cross-party approach and amazing campaigners who, with so much grace and humanity, laid everything on the table at evidence session after evidence session. An example is Michelle McCluskey, whose mum died of a cancer tumour, weighing just 3 stone after the DWP stopped her £117 a week benefit. She relayed the pain and suffering this caused her over and over again to the media and in evidence sessions, trying desperately to ensure that nobody else had to endure the same. She, like other amazing campaigners, such as Mark Hughes, who himself has a terminal illness, and others who have campaigned with terminal illnesses, achieved this change today. This change is their victory—this is their moment—and I want to put on record my thanks to each and every one of them, and to the teams at Marie Curie, the MND Association and MND Scotland for all they did to lobby this Government over the past five years to just simply do the right thing.
Back in 2017, when we started to form the campaign, we must have been much less jaded as we seriously thought, given how horrendous the situation was and how easy it was to fix, that this Government would act, but it is now 2022 and, thankfully, the legislation is now going through its remaining stages today. Although I am happy—I am happy this is happening, believe me, because as a result, thousands of people will get the fast-access support they need—and I welcome the Bill, I must highlight the human cost of this Government’s inaction. Year after year we produced reports, held evidence sessions, met Minister after Minister, and highlighted real and devastating cases. We were promised that action would come. I have heard stories of the internal workings, but people who are dying do not really want to hear those. They want action to help them and their families at that time.
We held evidence sessions, and every time we were promised that action would come. Then there was a reshuffle and a new Minister, more promises of action, another new Minister and yet more promises of action, then yet another Minister and so forth. All the while, the Government were telling us that the review was imminent, and all that time we were losing campaigners to their terminal illnesses as each new Minister came and went. That time cost many more lives than we ever foresaw. Back in early 2021, Marie Curie estimated that until that point around 6,000 people had died waiting for this change.
Let us remember what we are talking about. This is not a budgetary change or a big costly exercise; this is about faster access to help for people who are dying from a terminal illness. Five years from when I first raised the issue with the then Secretary of State, five years of campaigning by so many incredible people, and we are here—it is welcome. However, this is a story of a failing Government who need to understand the issues around this. Back when I first raised the issue with a UK Minister, I also raised it with the then Scottish Minister responsible for the roll-out of Scotland’s new social security operation, Jeane Freeman MSP. Her response was almost immediate:
“Thank you for highlighting this issue and we will find a way to ensure this never happens with the new Scottish Social Security Department.”
True to her word, for personal independence payments the Scottish Government have taken an open-ended approach to defining terminal illness for financial support. I have yet to have one complaint in my inbox that people are not getting that support, so I do not see the difficulties that have been highlighted. The Scottish Government chose to start from a place of putting those people and their needs first, and to find a way to make the system work while putting dignity and respect at the heart of the process. That is in sharp contrast to this Parliament, where the internal struggles of the Tory party have seen us reach our fifth Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions in five years, and a hostile approach that is not limited to the Home Office but reverberates across Departments.
Justin Tomlinson
I absolutely understand the good intentions behind what the hon. Gentleman sets out, but the fundamental flaw is that it relies on people who are terminally ill knowing about the support, and how to navigate what is now a complex situation in Scotland. Under our rules, the 12-month rule, support can be automatically highlighted by GPs at the same time as palliative care. Not only is that a better system, but people who would otherwise unknowingly miss that support will get it. Will he lobby the Scottish Government to listen to the stakeholders he has praised and mirror what we are doing?
Drew Hendry
I thank the former Minister for his intervention, and I would say two things. First, the principle in Scotland was to ensure that it was not a DWP operative or contracted-out person who made the decision, but clinicians and health professionals. This is not a particularly party political issue, but I said that I would give a voice to the frustrations of people of all political persuasion, and none, who have struggled and suffered through this process, and that is what I am doing. I will always work to try to get a problem ironed out, should a problem exist, but I am not faced with the same content in my mailbag that I had in previous years due to difficulties with the DWP.
Like other Departments, the DWP is barely functioning at the moment, so there is real work for the new Secretary of State and Minister to get into. Staff from offices across the Chamber cannot get answers for our constituents, and the situation is even worse for colleagues in local citizens advice bureaux. People living with terminal illness face housing and fuel poverty on top of the rising costs that come with having to live with a chronic health condition: they have to stay in and heat their houses because they have to be as well as possible in those houses. People living with terminal illness face many ongoing issues, and they, like millions of households across the nations of the UK, are being failed if that is not heard. The Government must listen to those demands to treat dying people with dignity and respect and ensure that more people do not die stressful deaths in poverty due to inaction.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I join in congratulating Ministers and the Secretary of State on their new appointments. I do not think that anybody wants to delay the legislation further for the 30,000 to 60,000 people who will benefit from the change, so I will confine my remarks to Second Reading.
It is a pleasure, as ever, to speak in support of the Bill, which represents an important milestone in the long struggle to improve how our benefits system treats the terminally ill. That we are debating this vital legislation in Government time is not an accident but the result of years of dogged work by organisations such as the Motor Neurone Disease Association and Marie Curie, both of which were of huge support to me when I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on the subject in 2020. It is also, as others have said, testament to many local volunteers who support those organisations’ work in their communities. On that note, I thank Judith Rice and the very active south-east Wales branch of the MND Association that brought the issue to my attention and has continued to lobby for change.
Like the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), I pay tribute to campaigners across the country including Mark Hughes and Michelle McCluskey. He is quite right that this is their victory, along with those organisations. I also pay tribute to my very good friend Madeleine Moon, the former Member for Bridgend, who I see is in the Gallery. I am glad that she is here to see our proceedings. Her campaigning work on this and her zeal was born out of her own tragic loss. She was particularly dedicated to the cause. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for terminal illness, did a lot of good work in this area by calling out the systematic injustices faced by those living with terminal illness. I thank Mark Jackson from Marie Curie as well as Alison Railton and Lana Ghafoor, both formerly of the MND Association, who were of great help to both the all-party parliamentary group and to me on the ten-minute rule Bill.
I also thank the Government for listening. While I and others will be critical of the delays in getting legislation to the Table over the last two or more years, I am grateful that we are here today and that Ministers have recognised the broad cross-party support for this change. I thank the former Minister, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). There was dogged campaigning on this issue, but he did listen and move things forward. Today, he has had the chance to set out some of the complexities, which will be on the record.
As others have outlined, the Bill will bring an end to the hated six-month rule: a cruel stipulation that forced many of the most vulnerable people in our society to prove that they had six months or less to live to receive benefits under those special rules. The six-month rule was always illogical for those living with complex and unpredictable terminal illnesses such motor neurone disease, given that an exact prognosis of life expectancy within a half-year window is often impossible. It is a disgrace that so many households were pushed through that inhumane bureaucratic hoop at a time of unimaginable pain and worry.
Thankfully, as others have said, the six-month rule has already been removed from the special rules claims for ESA and universal credit, and the Bill will ensure that the same is true for PIP, attendance allowance and DLA. It is crucial that the Bill has a swift passage onto the statute book. For that reason, colleagues in the Lords ensured that it passed through the other place unamended. On behalf of terminally ill people in my constituency and those across the country who simply cannot afford to wait any longer, I support a similar course of action here. The six-month rule may soon be consigned to history, but there is still so much more to do to ensure that terminally ill people are afforded the dignity and respect they deserve from our social security system. I want to speak to some of those connected, ongoing injustices today.
The three-year award duration rule is still in place, forcing terminally ill people to reapply for their benefits if they live for longer than three years. The Motor Neurone Disease Association has pointed to cases where people who outlived their prognosis but were extremely ill—completely paralysed, ventilated or unable to speak—received letters telling them their benefits would stop unless they made a new claim. As with the six-month rule, that is not just cruel but illogical. For example, an applicant can receive a 10-year personal independence payment award with only a “light touch review” after a decade of having a severe or lifelong disability, but if they have a terminal illness they might be made to make a full reapplication after just three years. That makes no sense.
Another issue to look at going forward will be the 12-month rule, which has replaced its six-month predecessor. While it is clear that the DWP wanted to ensure that some timebound definition for the special rules remained in place, it is important that Ministers commit to reviewing the impact of the change to see if it is having the desired effect, or whether significant numbers of terminally ill people are still being disadvantaged. The Government must be diligent in monitoring that and keep all options on the table for the future, including looking at whether a timebound model is more appropriate than a timescale-free approach, such as the one adopted in Scotland. I hope the Minister can speak a bit more to that later on and at the very least commit to a regular evaluation of the new system.
It is important to note that the Bill will not be enough in itself to protect dying people from falling into poverty. As Marie Curie pointed out—this was also raised by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) at business questions—the Bill covers access to benefits but not the adequacy of those benefits. Research shows they are all too often inadequate in meeting the impact on finances caused by the additional costs and loss of income that follow a terminal diagnosis. Marie Curie highlighted the cumulative impact of the benefits cap over the last 12 years, which has meant that in real terms working-age benefits are now less generous than they were under the last Labour Government. Benefit rates had fallen behind inflation over the last decade, even before the current cost of living crisis. Marie Curie’s research shows that 90,000 people die in poverty each year in the UK, with those of working age twice as likely to fall into poverty at the end of life. That number is only likely to have gone up over the last eight months, with household bills, the price of food and other essentials going up and benefit rates not rising to meet the shortfall. We face the prospect of more terminally ill people falling into poverty.
I urge the Government to engage with Marie Curie on its “Dying In Poverty” campaign, which had its launch yesterday in Parliament. The campaign’s aim is to ensure that everybody with a terminal illness is able to access the financial support they need to cope with the cost of housing, energy, childcare and disability at the end of their life. That is really important. It includes looking at proposals to ensure that terminally ill people of working age are able to access their state pension early, and, in the immediate short term, at targeted support on soaring energy bills for terminally ill people given their particular vulnerability to fuel poverty.
This afternoon is one of the rare occasions when the whole House is united in our determination to improve how our social security system treats some of the most vulnerable people in our society. That is important, and this legislation is really important. What is doubly critical, however, is that the changes represent a starting point rather than a full stop. We must do more and strengthen our resolve to ensure that none of our constituents or loved ones ever face the indignity of spending their final months worrying about whether they will have enough money to make it through the week. Until the wonderful day that cures are found for the wretched terminal illnesses that blight so many lives, our priority should be to ensure that our welfare system affords every dying person the dignity, decency and respect they deserve. It cuts to the core of what we want our social security system to be and what we want our country to stand for, but I am thankful today for this legislation.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
Like other Members, I am keeping the Queen and her family in my thoughts and prayers at this time.
It is always refreshing when consensus breaks out in the House, and that has, more or less, been demonstrated this afternoon. I pay tribute to the Members who have spoken who have campaigned on this issue for considerably longer than I have—for many years. We will almost certainly all have constituents who stand to benefit almost immediately once the Bill is implemented. Indeed, many of us will have friends and family, in our constituencies or elsewhere, who will feel the positive impact.
As a number of Members have noted, the direct application of the Bill in Scotland will be partial, because the disability living allowance and the personal independence payment have been replaced by the child and adult disability payment schemes respectively. In due course, the attendance allowance will be replaced by the pension age disability payment.
The Scottish Government have taken a distinct approach by placing dignity, fairness and respect at the heart of social security, which they recognise as a human right. They think that it is not about the beneficence of the state but is something that people are inherently entitled to, so that they can live an adequate and humane life. Therefore, when these payments are made available to people in Scotland who have received a diagnosis of a terminal illness, there will not be a specific time limit. Social security becomes available if a clinician determines that their patient has
“a progressive disease that can reasonably be expected to cause the individual’s death.”
The UK Government will at some point have to review the implementation and effectiveness of the Bill after it has been enacted—I hope to have a bit more to say about that in Committee—and when that time comes, they should look carefully at the experience and approach being taken in Scotland and at whether it is working.
The overall costs of the Bill to Government—whether in Scotland or the UK—are not exorbitant, but the difference that will be made to the lives of those in receipt of benefit will be significant. The 12-month limit, instead of a six-month limit, will remove uncertainty in the most difficult of circumstances and provide quicker and easier access to support at a time when it is needed most. That will be true across the spectrum, no matter the age of the individual or the shape of the household. It does seem, however, that the changes will be particularly welcomed by people and families of working age, who often feel the impact of a terminal diagnosis particularly hard.
As others have said, Marie Curie is one of a number of organisations who have campaigned for many years for the Bill to be introduced. All those groups should be congratulated. Marie Curie research shows that 90,000 people die in poverty every year in the UK. One in four terminally ill people of working age spend the last year of their lives in poverty, so the quicker and easier that it is to access these benefits, and the earlier that that can be done in the diagnostic and clinical journey, the better. With a terminal diagnosis, time becomes even more precious, and that time should not be frittered away because of money worries or state-imposed bureaucracy.
The Marie Curie “Dying in poverty” report contains some powerful and moving testimony from people and families around the UK who are struggling to make ends meet while dealing with a terminal illness. One of those who shared their experiences is Melanie, who, as well as being a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), is a close personal friend of mine. I have known her husband, Tom, since we were the same age as their wee boy is today—he is also my godson—and I had the immense privilege of being the best man at their wedding earlier this year.
Mel spoke to the BBC about how radically their lives have changed since she was diagnosed with stage 3 cancer last year. They are experiencing what many families and households experience when one of their number becomes terminally ill. The chances are that the person with the illness stops working and at some point begins to lose contractual or statutory entitlements to sick pay. However, with reduced mobility and greater support needs, their partner finds that they, too, need time off work and perhaps a reduction in hours, which, in turn, means a further reduction of income. That is at a point when costs and outgoings begin to increase—for adaptations to the house, more specialised food or drink and more frequent trips to the hospital—and that is exactly what has happened to Mel, Tom and their family.
When Mel gave her testimony to Marie Curie and the BBC, she said it was not because they were special—although they are very, very special indeed to me—but because what they are experiencing is typical. Cancer support forums and other terminal illness support groups are full of such stories, and we have heard others from across the House. For thousands of families like them across the country, the situation this winter is not going to get any easier. Skyrocketing energy prices will lead to exceptionally difficult choices, even with the support packages announced today. “Heat or eat” is a phrase that we hear so many times in this Chamber, but that is the almost impossible choice facing people with a terminal illness. Warmth and good nutrition are essential if medical treatments are to have any chance of prolonging or improving quality of life and if palliative care and pain medication are to have any kind of impact. It is not just about the costs of food and fuel; energy-efficiency measures such as a new boiler, a window or wall insulation are rarely completely cost-free. That means more up-front capital expense at a time when savings are dwindling, if they still exist.
The last time Mel and I spoke about the Bill, she made an important point. The changes that we are debating today and the further changes that Marie Curie and others are calling for are not specifically about tackling the wider cost of living crisis that is affecting the country today. Even if inflation were low and energy prices were stable, research shows that a terminal diagnosis could cost a household as much as £12,000 to £16,000 per year. People need support. People are entitled to support to help them to get through these most difficult of times, focus on their life, their family and their loved ones, make memories and savour the moments while they can. They should not have to worry about whether they can keep their houses warm or fill up the tank to drive to hospital for treatment.
Urgent action must be taken to support everyone who is feeling the impact of the cost of living crisis, including those who are diagnosed with a terminal illness, but that needs to happen above and beyond the provisions of the Bill. For working-age households in particular, a terminal diagnosis often creates its own cost of living crisis or, worse, cost of dying crisis. Basic human dignity should mean that those who can no longer be an active part of the workforce and who are faced with the end of their life are adequately supported to spend what remains of their time as comfortably as they can.
The Marie Curie report makes some recommendations for further steps, such as bringing forward eligibility for the state pension. We might be able to discuss that point in a little more detail in Committee, but for now I think we need to welcome the consensus for the Bill’s Second Reading. For some families, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said, it has come too late. It has taken years of campaigning to bring about a change that will cost very little to the Government but that might make all the difference to those who will benefit.
Passing the Bill today will not be job done. Its provisions must be kept under review and benchmarked against better or best practice in Scotland or elsewhere. If individuals and families, like my friends, who want to make the most of their time together after a terminal diagnosis think that further, different or more support is needed, they should be listened to and it should be provided.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
May I welcome the new Secretary of State, who is not in her place, and the new Minister of State? This is a short but important and welcome Bill that has rightly been approached in a spirit of consensus and in a largely non-partisan manner. Hon. Members on both sides of the House and former Members have campaigned hard over many years to get us to this point; it may feel inevitable now that we have reached it, but I know that it does not feel inevitable while people are campaigning for it. The former Minister, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), played his part as well. All credit must be paid to everybody who has brought us to this point, including the charities and campaigning organisations that have done so much work and have brought the evidence to the Government for making the change.
All Members who have debated the Bill this afternoon or in the other House agree that the experience for people with a terminal illness is almost inevitably one of financial worry as a result of lost earnings and additional costs. At the very time when they need the least stress in their life, financial worries all too frequently add not just to their own stress but to that of their loved ones and those who care for them. The last thing that people with a serious illness or a terminal condition need is to go through the worry of making benefit applications and amassing evidence. The fewer cliff edges in their path, the better. We need to do everything we can to reduce the stresses for people who are already living with unimaginable stress. The Bill is welcome because it will do that. It will relieve stress for many, many people for a considerable period.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) made clear in opening this short debate, it is a shame that it has taken us three years to proceed from the start of the evaluation of the special rules for terminal illness to where we are now, but we are none the less relieved that we are passing legislation, and doing so with everyone’s support. We want these changes to proceed with all speed. However, there are one or two areas in which we have sought additional assurances; no doubt they will be referred to in Committee as well.
First, can we be assured that as we pass from the general into the specific—the opening up of entitlement to potentially tens of thousands of individuals—no further barriers will be put in the way of claimants, and the system will have the capacity to process applications swiftly and compassionately? Perhaps during the Bill’s further stages the Minister will be able to say a bit little more about what capacity can be guaranteed in the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that that will be possible.
Secondly, we have heard a little about the need for us to monitor the potential for different approaches as the Bill proceeds. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), there will still be a great deal to do once the six-month rule has been consigned to history. It is important for us at least to keep an open mind as we monitor the implications of these changes, in view of the inevitable trade-offs. We must ensure that a time limit which has the benefit of administrative simplicity does not exclude the exceptional needs of people with an illness, because health conditions are so imprecise and the evaluation of the medical profession is inevitably precise. The circumstances of those whose condition takes them just over a period of qualification should be considered flexibly and compassionately. A more open-ended approach may be more complex, but it can ensure that individuals are treated in a more dignified and compassionate manner.
Obviously we have no intention of delaying the Bill’s progress. However, we seek assurances from the Minister that these issues will be considered further, that the impact will be closely monitored, and that attention will be paid to the merits of an alternative approach. That said, I hope that we can now move very quickly to complete the passage of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Victoria Prentis)
The thoughts and prayers of the House and, indeed, the whole nation are obviously with those in Balmoral at the moment.
It is nevertheless a great honour to debate this extremely important—if quite short—Bill, and to hear, from all parts of the Chamber, very personal stories and a passionate desire for us to do what we can to make the welfare system better for those who are nearing the end of their lives. Like so many others, I myself have buried both my child and my mother, and I strongly believe that we must do everything we can to help people to achieve the best possible death. This Bill is part of that passion.
I want to pay tribute to some of the people who share the passion. We have heard from some of them this afternoon, and we have heard from others who are no longer in this place. I should include in that list the former Member of Parliament for Hastings and Rye, who felt very firmly that she wanted to initiate and engage with such a Bill. We heard a passionate speech from my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). He has done a marvellous job for years, and indeed this afternoon, when he responded to many of the points to which I would otherwise have had to respond, as the Minister who has been in place for only hours, not days.
We have also heard about the former Member of Parliament for Bridgend, and it is such a pleasure to see her in the Public Gallery this afternoon to witness the conclusion of many years of work and passion. The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) has carried on that work in this place, and it was good to hear from her as well. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), the Scottish National party spokesman and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on terminal illness, has also worked very hard on issues relating to end-of-life care. It is good to feel consensus this afternoon, and I am really pleased to bring the Bill to this stage, although I feel slightly embarrassed, as others have been working in the area for so long.
I will touch very briefly on the questions that were asked in the course of this very short debate. They relate partly to time. It is important to get this right, and we had to consult. I say this as a new Minister: it is really important that we listen to both patients and clinicians. That always takes time. We have had a global pandemic in that time, but I agree that it is of course important for those who are dying that we roll out the rest of the policy as soon as possible. We are very much hoping that measures can be put in place and operational by April of next year.
The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) was kind enough to mention turnaround times. As a very new member of the Department, I am proud of the turnaround times. The fast-track approach means that there is a three-day average turnaround time in the special department that deals with the special rules. I think that is fantastic, and should reassure those across the House who are concerned about whether the system will have the capacity for these very special claims for people who are nearing the end of their lives. If I may use the words of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and change them a bit, I feel that there is an “computer says yes” attitude in that section of the Department. That is right and proper, and I will do all I can to ensure that that is maintained, and, yes, we will monitor the progress of the policy extremely carefully and it is right that we do that.
It is important that we listen to clinicians on the time limit. This is a difficult area. It is difficult for clinicians to have these conversations with patients and families, and it is difficult for them to know everything about the progress of a disease. As the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) said, it is sometimes almost impossible to tell.
Justin Tomlinson
On the specific point about clinicians, it is also about striking a balance. Clinicians do not want to be an extension of the DWP or the social security system. It was therefore also important to piggyback on existing work rather than creating arbitrary work. Clinicians have enough pressures, and they made that crystal clear in the engagement we had with them.
Victoria Prentis
My hon. Friend puts it much better than I can, and I thank him warmly for his engagement. The consultation was extensive and almost 1,000 clinicians were able to share their views. I would also like to reassure the House that we have a robust system in place to keep checking in to make sure that the system works in the best way it possibly can.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I do not know whether my hon. Friend would like to say a further word about the attitude of the DWP staff. I served on the Work and Pensions Committee for many years, as did the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck). I think the staff want to get the money out of the door, and if there is clarity in the rules that helps. I welcome the Bill, but I wanted to make that point about the staff, who are, I think, good-hearted and who want to do the job well.
Victoria Prentis
My right hon. and learned Friend makes an excellent point. In my interactions with DWP staff as a constituency MP, I have been blown away by their determination to help those we serve. I am sure that that accords with his experience.
In conclusion, the Bill will ensure that thousands more people who are at the end of their lives can get faster access to three disability benefits. It will change eligibility so that those expected to live for 12 months or less will be able to access support at an earlier stage. The changes will ensure a consistent end-of-life definition across health and welfare services and will introduce—this is very important, as clinicians begged for it—easily understood criteria that should lead to really effective implementation and wide take-up. The Government are committed to improving the benefit system so that people nearing the end of their lives will have a system that works, one that gives those who are affected the support they need when they need it and one that clinicians, charities and families can engage in with confidence.
I put on record my thanks to the individuals, charities, clinical groups and others who have supported the Department since the evaluation of how the benefits system supports people was launched in 2019, and I recognise the valuable work that has been done. The Department is absolutely committed to continuing to engage with them as the changes in this Bill are rolled out and implemented. This is only a small Bill, but it is one that will provide thousands more people with the valuable support they and their families need at what is a very difficult time, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Further proceedings on the Bill stood postponed (Order, this day).
Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill [Lords] (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Sir David Evennett.)
Question agreed to.
Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill [Lords]
Thursday 8th September 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022 View all Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 8 September 2022 - (8 Sep 2022)
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Just before we begin proceedings in Committee, may I add to the many statements that have been made this afternoon? The whole House, my constituents in Epping Forest and, indeed, everyone throughout the country is thinking of Her Majesty and the royal family. Our hearts go out to them.
Clause 1
Rules to apply where death expected within 12 months
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 1.
Clause 2 stand part.
New clause 1—Impact and policy review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the effectiveness of this Act.
(2) Before commencing the review, the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers or the Northern Ireland department on the terms of reference for the review and on the appointment of a person to conduct the review.
(3) The review must consider the findings from the evaluation of the special rules for terminal illness process published by the Department for Work and Pensions in July 2021.
(4) The review must in particular take into account the impact of this Act on—
(a) the quality of life and experience of poverty of the recipients of the relevant benefits,
(b) the well-being of carers and dependants of the recipients of the relevant benefits,
(c) the clinical care of the recipients of the relevant benefits, and
(d) the level of take-up of the relevant benefits.
(5) The review may consider and make recommendations for further provision in relation to financial support for people approaching the end of their life (where death can reasonably be expected within the next 12 months), such as bringing forward the date of eligibility for an individual’s state pension to align with the date from when the special rules apply to that individual.
(6) The final report of the review must take account of any contribution made to the review by or on behalf of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers or the Northern Ireland department.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review carried out under this section before both Houses of Parliament no later than 18 months after the date on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would require the Government to conduct and lay before Parliament a review of the effectiveness and impact of the Act, with requirements to consult Scottish and Welsh ministers and the Northern Ireland Department.
Victoria Prentis
I understand that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) does not intend to press new clause 1, yet it raises the significant issue of renewing the policy, so I will address it.
The Government introduced this Bill following extensive engagement with clinicians, patient groups and others on the support provided to those whose life is coming to an end. As the Committee knows, this engagement began in 2019. The Bill’s change to extend eligibility under the special rules from six months to 12 months was strongly supported during the evaluation. There was significant support from clinicians for a 12-month approach because they feel it is important to align the definition of “end of life” in the benefits system with the definition used in the NHS.
The DWP has engaged extensively with the devolved Administrations on the changes proposed in this Bill. In particular, the Department is in close contact with the Scottish Government to ensure that Scottish people who are nearing the end of their life and looking to access benefits through the special rules are supported by the DWP for reserved benefits, and by the Scottish Government as they continue to roll out their replacement disability benefits. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow North was here to hear the Secretary of State’s answer on the Department’s engagement with the Scottish Government. As a very new Minister, it is probably better that I defer to her experience of this matter. I very much agree with what she said a little earlier.
The Department also worked closely with the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland during the evaluation to ensure that the experience of people nearing the end of their lives in Northern Ireland was properly captured. The Department for Communities has already implemented the 12-month change, and both Departments continue to work together to ensure that the principle of parity is maintained across both social security systems.
We anticipate that the changes made by this Bill, which will provide thousands more people with vital financial support, will help improve the quality of the very precious time at the end of life. The changes will mean that people in that situation, and by extension their families and carers, can worry a little less about money. In order to help raise awareness of these changes and encourage take-up, we will continue to engage widely. We hope that wider groups—clinical groups and charities—can help us to communicate to those who meet the new definition to make a claim under the special rules. We will monitor the effect of these changes carefully, and we will use our existing network and do some more proactive engagement, too. We will watch with interest as the different approach taken by the Scottish Government is fully rolled out, and I am very committed, as is my Secretary of State, to maintaining strong links with the Scottish Government.
Justin Tomlinson
Will the Minister also formally write to her Scottish counterparts and mirror the request, asking that they formally review their efforts and consider the weight of evidence that supports our changes to seek parity?
Victoria Prentis
That sounds like a very sensible suggestion from the former Minister, and if I am charged with this policy area when departmental briefs are fully worked out, I will ensure that I keep up a close dialogue with the Scottish Government on how the two systems are working, both separately and together.
We will also continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to assess the impact of these changes on the end of life care provided by the health and social care system as a whole. If at any time a more comprehensive evaluation of the policy is required, we will, of course, commission one, as we did in 2019. The Government want to do all they can to alleviate the pressures on those nearing the end of their lives, and on their families. Our priority is providing people with financial support quickly and compassionately. We are determined to ensure that people have certainty about when they can expect to receive their state pension and that the state pension system is fair to future generations. I hope that this answer has helped to address some of the questions that the hon. Member for Glasgow North may have had, and I understand that he does not intend to press his amendment.
Matt Rodda
May I support and associate myself with the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition about how we are thinking about the royal family at this difficult time?
I have already outlined our support for this Bill and highlighted several areas in which I believe the House seeks further clarification. I thank the Minister for her responses on some of those, and I look forward to further clarification. As we consider the next stage of the Bill, I would like to share a few case studies from people whose lives have been impacted by the rules, so that we can consider this issue more fully. I also wish to thank Marie Curie for highlighting these cases.
The first case is that of Lorraine Cox from Enniskillen in Northern Ireland. When Lorraine was diagnosed with motor neurone disease in 2018, she applied for personal independence payment to help mitigate the impact the disease was having on her daily life. Sadly, to her shock, her claim was declined. Lorraine took her case to judicial review and it became influential in convincing the Department for Work and Pensions to change the law through this Bill. Sadly, Lorraine passed away in July 2022, while the Bill was still awaiting its passage through the Commons. Lorraine spoke to Marie Curie in 2019 about her experiences, and I will share some of her words with you now.
Lorraine said:
“From the moment I started the application process, I felt like I wasn’t being taken seriously. Just because I don’t look ill—I still wear make-up and dress well every day—that doesn’t mean that I’m less entitled. People don’t realise the impact MND can have on your life. It’s the little everyday things that become a struggle.
I’ve completely lost the feeling in my left hand. I can’t make my own bed, my children help me get dressed, I have a cleaner, I can’t cook the way I used to. My balance is off, and I can now feel my foot starting to go too.”
As part of her PIP application, Lorraine had a face-to-face consultation with a disability assessor. It was after this consultation that she was told her application had been declined. She said:
“I felt so angry when I was assessed as not fitting the criteria. It’s very disheartening and I just don’t understand why it has to be so difficult. Work is very important to me as it gives me some independence and allows me to focus on something else. It’s a bit of escapism from my condition.”
Patrick Grady
As others have said, there is a consensus across the House and I do not intend to do anything to disrupt that with new clause 1. It is probing by nature and the probing has taken place, because the Minister has responded in quite some detail, for which I am grateful, on some of what it was trying to achieve. It is worth spelling that out for the record, even if the exchange is a bit back to front as a result.
We heard on Second Reading that even with the Bill, thousands of households will continue to experience poverty as a result of a terminal illness diagnosis. The Government should therefore be prepared to keep the impact of the changes under review, which is what new clause 1 would require. In doing so, they should look at practice elsewhere, which would obviously include the devolved Administrations. That is why that specific requirement is in the new clause. The Scottish Government have decided to take a different approach—a distinct human rights-based approach—to social security. In this specific context, there is the deliberate lack of a time limit on the definition of terminal illness, and the qualification for payments is determined by a clinician, rather than by Government bureaucracy.
Justin Tomlinson
To be crystal clear, both systems have a clinical professional making the decision—there is no difference. Furthermore, there is no additional money in either our system or Scotland’s system. It is just about how quickly a person can access the fast-track service.
Patrick Grady
That is quite helpful. In the spirit of consensus, I think I would say that this is not job done. That is what I was trying to achieve with my amendment. The passing of the Bill is not where the Government tick a box and everyone pats themselves on the back and goes away. We will have to keep the impact of this under review. Yes, people both north and south of the border will have to look at how things are panning out and come back to it. That is the point that we are trying to make. The amendment provided the opportunity for that point to be made on Second Reading.
Subsections 4 and 5 urge us to consider what wider support might be available, even once people are able to access the additional benefits available through the Bill. That is why Marie Curie and others are calling for the state pension to be paid to anyone who is dying of a terminal illness regardless of their age. Working age social security payments, such as universal credit and employment and support allowance, are just that—they are security payments for when work is not possible or available for whatever reason. A pension is a contributory system. It is a contract. It has been paid into, at least in theory—that might not be how the state pension works in practice, but that is the theory behind it. Many private pensions will pay out, or have the option to be paid out, when a terminal diagnosis has been made, so allowing the same access to the state pension would be a further significant step forward in ensuring that people of working age who are terminally ill can spend their remaining time with some certainty and comfort.
The Government must agree that, in the 21st century in the UK, nobody should have to die in poverty. That is why this is a probing amendment. I am grateful for the pre-emptive response from the Minister and that she has taken this in the spirit in which it has been tabled. I hope that she will confirm that the impact of the Bill will be kept under review, that the Department will work with and learn from the experience of Scotland and elsewhere, and that, when and if more support is required for people, such as access to the state pension, it will be provided.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1, accordingly, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Extent, commencement and short title
Government amendment made: 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (6).
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.
Third Reading
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a great pleasure to be speaking on Third Reading. As we have heard this afternoon, the Bill will ensure that more people in their final year of life can access the benefits they need in a fast and simple way. It will result in a consistent end-of-life definition being used across health and welfare services in England and Wales. I thank all those who have prioritised the passage of the Bill through the House. I would also like to thank the House authorities, and the Bill team, which has had to cope with an extremely new Minister—in post this morning—and brief her thoroughly about the Bill. I also wish to thank previous Ministers in my role who have done all they can to take the Bill forward. Above all, I think the whole House would like to thank the charities and campaigners, including Marie Curie, Macmillan, the Motor Neurone Disease Association and others who have worked so hard for this moment.
Matt Rodda
I thank the Minister for her remarks as well as all the hon. Members who have taken part today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden); the former Minister the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson); the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady); the Chair of the Select Committee and others. I, too, pay tribute to the charities, organisations, trade unions and individuals who have campaigned tirelessly to ensure that these changes are introduced.
As we have already heard, congratulations in particular go to Marie Curie and the MND Association for their Scrap 6 Months campaign. I also pay tribute to all the individuals impacted by this, their families and carers.
This is a short Bill, but it will have a huge impact on many people’s lives at an incredibly stressful time. It is a privilege to play a part in the process of making people’s final months somewhat easier than they might otherwise have been. We chose not to table any amendments to the Bill even though I would have welcomed the opportunity to explore further some of the issues highlighted on Second Reading. It is imperative that we get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible so that people can start to benefit from the amended definition of end of life. As things stand, fast-track access to universal credit and ESA is available for those with 12 months to live, while PIP, DLA and attendance allowance are only available for those deemed to have six months to live. That is understandably causing confusion, and everything must be brought into line as quickly as possible.
I shall end by reiterating two very important points. First, will the Minister consider following the Scottish Government in taking a more open-ended approach, rather than insisting that awards made under the special rules can last for only three years? Will she commit to evaluating the relative effectiveness of the two different approaches in the coming months?
Secondly, I return to my point about seeking reassurances about how the Department will ensure that it has the capacity to maintain a truly fast turnaround time for applications made under the special rules. Will it monitor how many people receive their claims before they die? Will it also evaluate how well information is being filtered down to clinicians and others who need it so that they find the process easy to navigate.
Once again, I thank the Minister and colleagues for their thoughtful contributions. The Bill has our full support.
Drew Hendry
I am also keen for the Bill to make progress as quickly as possible. Our thanks should go to the people who have been campaigning for this change, including the fabulous organisations such as Marie Curie, Macmillan and Citizens Advice; MND and MND Scotland, which have done so much work; and individual campaigners who have told their stories time and again, some at great personal cost.
I praise the probing amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), because it is important that such matters are considered. I hope, from the Minister’s tone today, that she will take away some of the comments that have been made so that lessons can be learned from what has happened to people. Terminally ill people will face increased pressures in the coming months and years, and it is vital that services can be streamlined for them. Ministerial churn should not slow the process in the future and work should be done to ensure that protection.
It has been suggested that the Scottish Government need to do further work. I am certain that the Minister, Ben Macpherson, will be delighted to consider how things can be streamlined further in the interests of fairness and dignity for those people at the heart of the system. I am sure that the Minister will find an open door there.
As I said right at the beginning, this is a welcome step that will help people. It is a victory for the campaigners, so well done to them. They will not stop, and they should not stop, until they get the things they need for the people affected and their families.
Justin Tomlinson
To seek to take advantage of the consensus, as part of the review I appeal to the Minister that, as set out in the Green Paper, the next stage is to extend and review the severe conditions criteria, so that those who sadly have terminal degenerative conditions, but would not necessarily be at that 12-month point, find a much simpler and swifter process to enter in to the various elements of support. That would both be good for the claimant and relieve pressure on a system that has a huge amount of demand on it, which would then speed up the process for others so that it could be faster than the current 16 weeks.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
House of Commons Commission
Ordered,
That Deidre Brock be appointed to the House of Commons Commission in place of Pete Wishart in pursuance of section 1(2)(d) of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, as amended. —(Mr Peter Bone.)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am just prevaricating for a moment. A point of order would be very helpful.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is obviously important that hon. Members who have an Adjournment debate, for example, are in the Chamber when they ought to be. However, when business collapses because of the outbreak of consensus that we saw in the House and the determination of hon. Members to ensure that the Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill [Lords] proceeded as quickly as possible and could get on to the statute book, perhaps it is a little bit surprising. I think we should be grateful to hon. Members that we were able to achieve that consensus. I put on record, as I did not get a chance to, how well the Minister did in responding to my specific amendment, given that she was brand new, and I commend the work of her officials, who have to do that little bit of extra work when amendments come in from Back Benchers. We should be grateful for that consensus, even if it takes a few of us by surprise.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has been most eloquent and helpful to the House in his point of order. It is not really a matter for the Chair, but if I were to express an opinion, it would be that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) owes the hon. Gentleman a double Glenmorangie.
Free School Meals and Child Poverty
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
On behalf of the constituents of Liverpool, Riverside, I extend my heartfelt wishes to the Queen and the royal family and wish her a speedy recovery.
I am grateful to have secured this Adjournment debate on free school meals and tackling child poverty. This is a very urgent and timely call to action for the new Prime Minister, calling for the roll-out of universal free school meals. I believe no issue is more important than making sure that no child goes hungry.
I congratulate the Minister on her new position and the new Education Secretary—the fifth we have had this year. I hope the Minister is serious about tackling the very real poverty crisis that has exploded over the past 12 years of Tory rule. We know it is likely to get worse over the coming months, which will be the hardest winter for thousands of children growing up in poverty.
When I applied for this debate before the summer recess, I had intended to focus on how the benefits of investing in universal free school meals would help to reverse the long-standing and ever-deepening inequalities in health and educational attainment between poorer pupils and their more affluent peers. But the economic landscape has worsened significantly. Everything is going up except incomes for the worst-off. The cost of living crisis is set to plunge two thirds of the country into fuel poverty and three quarters of a million children into poverty. The call for universal free school meals has now become much more urgent.
If the new Prime Minister is to prevent children from freezing and starving this winter, rolling out universal free school meals must be a key cornerstone of any emergency support plan. Instead of a real living wage and a welfare system that supports people out of poverty, we have a crisis of insecure work and poverty pay, and a welfare system that drives people into destitution. Make no bones about it, we are facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. Inflation and interest rates are going up, while the pound is plunging and a record rise in food prices is pushing millions more into food insecurity.
As pupils head back to school this week, nearly a quarter will be eligible for free school meals. That number has risen by nearly 50% since 2019 and is rising every single day. It is a clear indication of the explosion in child poverty that this Government have contributed to during the last 12 years of austerity. We have seen attacks on the welfare system and under-resourcing of the public sector. School pupils have already suffered setbacks during the pandemic, with inequalities in educational attainment widening, particularly between the north and the south. In my constituency of Liverpool, Riverside, 11 children in every class of 30 were already living in poverty before the current cost of living crisis.
Classroom hunger drives the education attainment gap between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers, leaving poorer children over 18 months behind their better-off peers by the time they leave secondary school. A-level and GCSE results this year showed regional and national disparities. The attainment gap between the richest and the poorest pupils is more pronounced than ever. Even before the current cost of living crisis, Government policies failed to level up and instead fuelled spiralling inequalities.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate on such an important matter. As a former primary school teacher for many years, I know what she is saying: a child cannot learn if they are hungry in school. Does she agree that the announcement in today’s energy statement does nothing to assure schools that are having to cut back their free school meal service to young people that those young people will not be going hungry in the weeks and months to come?
Kim Johnson
I do agree; children cannot learn on empty bellies. It is scandalous that, even at this young age, the futures of the most of them have already been decided. Their life expectancy, job opportunities, salary, housing and so much more have already been predetermined by their background—by situations that are outside their control.
The National Education Union’s campaign, “No Child Left Behind”, clearly identified child poverty as the biggest scandal of our time, with 4 million already living in poverty and a further three quarters of a million projected to be plunged into poverty in the coming months. In a recent NEU survey, over eight in 10 teachers said that their students demonstrate fatigue and an inability to concentrate as a result of poverty. Nearly three quarters said that their students were unable to complete homework and more than half said that their students had experienced hunger or ill health. Millions of children are going hungry every single day. The current restrictive eligibility, complicated registration procedures and the stigma built into a system that separates rich and poor mean that children are already missing out on existing support.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I thank my good friend for giving way and congratulate her on securing this important debate. I also paid tribute to her for organising an event with the National Education Union earlier this week in Westminster Hall to highlight the issues in our schools. The former Prime Minister preached to us about the benefits of levelling up, but one easy way to level up the north and the south, and also address the educational attainment gap and the lack of productivity, would be for the Government to make a universal free school meal offer to everyone so that our children are not segregated between rich and poor at our institutions.
Kim Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention and I definitely agree that universality is the way forward for free school meals.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate. In York in 2021, 25.3% of children were in poverty, and that number will have gone up substantially in the last 12 months. One thing that really struck me about the event that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) is talking about was the stigma that children experienced because they were different from other children. For that reason alone, surely we should have a universal offer of free school meals for children, so that they have the same stature as their peers and are not marked out as a child needing free school meals.
Kim Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention and will come on to the point about stigma later.
More than 200,000 children are eligible for free school meals but are currently missing out. At my free school meals event with the National Education Union on Tuesday in Parliament, which received cross-party support, we heard some heartbreaking testimonies from youth ambassadors for the End Child Poverty coalition.
Liv, Emilia and Naomi, who have lived experiences of food poverty, spoke passionately about their personal experiences of being singled out in front of their friends and watching their parents skip meals to ensure that they were fed. They spoke about the long-term impact on their mental health, on their relationship with food, and on their responses to the current pressures of the cost of living crisis, and about the trauma response that growing up with such pressures has instilled in them. One said that having free school meals was like having a badge pinned to their blazer that read “Poor.” That stigma often worsens in secondary school and can be incredibly alienating for children struggling to fit in and thrive.
Data from the Child Poverty Action Group has shown that 800,000 children currently living in poverty are not eligible for free school meals, and miss out on holiday support and other benefits. That number is increasing every day, with many families falling into debt with school lunches. Crucially, children are denied a meal if they are more than two weeks in arrears.
On the steps of Downing Street on Tuesday, the new Prime Minister said that
“we have what it takes to tackle those challenges”
and that we can “ride out the storm”, but the energy price guarantee announced this afternoon will not support families already in crisis. They will be paying far more, not less.
A recent report from the Food Foundation revealed that about 2.6 million children live in households that missed meals or struggled to access healthy food. Levels of insecurity in households with children have risen by more than 40% since the start of this year alone. We are one of the richest countries in the world, yet so many low-paid workers, including public sector workers, rely on food banks. Nearly 70% of food bank providers say, however, that they may need to turn people away or shrink the size of emergency rations due to a completely unsustainable surge in demand that will prevent them from feeding the hungriest families this winter.
The Government-commissioned national food strategy, authored by Henry Dimbleby, calls for the extension of free school meals for all under-16-year-olds in households earning under £20,000, to help to tackle the nutritional gap between rich and poor in this country. Children in the most disadvantaged areas are now being diagnosed with Victorian diseases such as rickets, scurvy and scarlet fever—and that was even before the cost of living crisis.
Four councils have rolled out universal free school meals for all primary school children. Southwark pioneered that flagship initiative a decade ago in response to the so-called once-in-a-lifetime economic crisis. The results speak for themselves. Pupils made four to eight weeks’ more progress than expected. The schools have seen a massive improvement in attainment over the last 10 years and have gone from being fourth bottom to more than 90% being rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. Nearly a quarter more children were eating vegetables at lunch time, and there was an 18% reduction in children consuming crisps and soft drinks. Hammersmith and Fulham has seen a 60% increase in secondary school children on free school meals since 2018, and it is now piloting universal free school meals for secondary pupils.
Universal provision contributes to family food security. It improves pupils’ concentration and behaviour. It improves attendance, which is also a key aim of this Government’s Schools Bill. It increases the amount of fruit and vegetables and reduces the amount of sugar and salt consumed by pupils at lunch time. Crucially, it also reduces the stigma that many children who receive free school meals feel when they are singled out from their peers.
Often, stigma and mental health are overlooked in Government policy discussions—poorer children are expected to put up and shut up, and be grateful for their handouts—but the reality is incredibly damaging. It can cause long-term trauma and problems, and makes the means-tested policy far less effective. Yes, universal free school meals will cost. Yes, they should be understood as an investment in our future. However, these are children, and everything we do should allow them to flourish and thrive. Their bright futures should be our priority. We cannot lose sight of the human impact of not feeding our children, or of choosing an arbitrary threshold to decide who deserves to go hungry and who deserves to be fed.
Universality provides far greater opportunities to improve educational attainment across the board and to reverse the ever-growing inequalities. Investing in our children now will be better for everyone in the long term. Prevention is better than cure. Doing nothing now will reduce the productivity of the future workforce. It will put greater pressures on the NHS. It risks a generation suffering from poor mental health and poor physical health, and being trapped in a never-ending cycle of poverty.
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend is being generous with her time. I very much want York to adopt free school meals for all primary school children, and then to look at rolling that out to secondary school children. However, I also want to ensure that children in my constituency have access to a hot nutritious meal in their stomachs every day through the school holidays. I take it that my hon. Friend will also be campaigning against the school holiday hunger that we still see in our constituencies.
Kim Johnson
I thank my good friend for her contribution, and I definitely will be promoting food security during holiday periods. It is not just about children having a hot nutritious meal; in reality, it means so much more. It sets the foundations for improved behaviour and improved attainment. It means better health, better jobs, higher salaries and higher life expectancy—in short, the chance to break the vicious cycle of poverty.
UK food prices have hit the highest levels since 2008. Children are going hungry right now. They simply cannot afford to wait for this Government while they are dragging their feet. The last time the Tories tried to resist helping hungry children, there was public outrage—
Kim Johnson
Yes, rightly so, and the campaign fronted by Marcus Rashford forced a U-turn within a matter of weeks. I hope the Minister can confirm that her Government will learn from past mistakes and act immediately to prevent unnecessary and unimaginable suffering for millions of children and their families. We will not allow this Government to continue to bury their head in the sand. On the steps of Downing Street this week, the outgoing Prime Minister claimed that the Tory party is a compassionate party. If that is truly the case, the new Prime Minister and the Education Secretary should take urgent steps to roll out universal free school meals as a priority.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Kelly Tolhurst)
It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon, but I too would like to express my best wishes to Her Majesty the Queen and her family at this difficult time.
First, I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) for securing this important debate at a crucial time, and I ask for her understanding as I was appointed merely a few hours ago. However, I will start by saying that I came into this role with great excitement, because I too care about my constituents and the young people in my constituency, and I absolutely agree that young children should go into school without experiencing hunger to be able to learn. I can assure the hon. Lady, immediately, that I look forward to working with her and others across the House as we move forward.
All Members have constituents who are struggling right now with the rising cost of living. It does not matter which side of the political spectrum we are on, we all know people who are currently finding it difficult. Like many hon. Members, one reason I came into politics was to change things for the better and help people, particularly in our constituencies. There can be no more deserving cause than making sure that a child has enough to eat. In this day and age, no one should accept the prospect of a child turning up, and trying their best to learn at school but being distracted by hunger. Children cannot learn properly if they are hungry, which is why plenty of safety mechanisms are in place to make sure that does not happen. I assure the House that the Government are totally committed to helping and supporting people who need support. That is part of our greater levelling-up ambitions.
Let me spell out in more detail what we are doing to support our most disadvantaged children and families. Free school meals are a vital means of ensuring that children get a decent meal if they come from families with parents who are out of work or on low incomes. Just under 2 million schoolchildren receive a free meal at lunchtime, under the benefit-related free school meal policy. That will relieve pressure on their families, and ensure that children get at least one healthy and nutritious meal a day. A further 1.25 million infants are also getting a meal through the universal infant free school meal policy. That brings the total proportion of schoolchildren getting a free meal at lunchtime to around 38%.
I said earlier that we all care about ensuring that children are well nourished, and thanks to cross-Government work we have permanently extended free school meals to children from all families with no recourse to public funds who meet certain income thresholds. That came into effect after Easter this year. The Department’s priority is to provide targeted support to pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds who are most in need. Extending free school meals to all pupils would carry a significant financial cost. We are confident that the current provision enables children to benefit, and is still affordable and deliverable for schools. That is currently the right approach in England, targeting those who need it most. As I said, we spend around £600 million per year ensuring that around 1.25 million infants enjoy a free, healthy, and nutritious meal at lunchtime, following the introduction of the universal infant free school meal policy in 2014. All Members here will have heard arguments from some quarters that we should roll out free school meals for all, but it is right that provision is aimed at supporting the most disadvantaged.
Navendu Mishra
I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. Will she comment on the point about stigma when it comes to means-tested free school meals? We do not have a means-tested system for schools in this country, but the Government test the means of the parents for free school meals. There is stigma that comes with poorer children being offered the free school meal option when others are not, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) spoke about the nutritional gap between children from wealthier families and those from poorer families. Will the Minister comment on that stigma, and on that productivity and nutritional gap?
Kelly Tolhurst
I absolutely get the point about stigma, and I know that schools work incredibly hard to overcome it. Free school meal eligibility will be under review, and in this post I look forward to getting into the detail and speaking to stakeholders, schools, parents and children, as I do already in my constituency. I look forward to widening the scope of that.
Rachael Maskell
I, too welcome the Minister to her new position. Richard Titmuss famously said that services to the poor are poor services. As we look at that divide, we know that many parents do not claim free school meals because of stigma, so children go hungry and without. Of course, parents often make sacrifices, too. Will she look at the equation again and at how we can bring greater equality into the lives of our young people?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Lady for that point. As I said, I, like all Members of Parliament, absolutely care about our young people in school and want them to thrive, have great lives and enjoy their school years, and we must ensure that stigma does not exist for them. In my role, I will look at many things, and I am more than happy to look at that further. We do not have plans to extend the universal provision in England, but, as I said, we will continue to keep free school meal eligibility under review to ensure that those meals are supporting those who need it most.
Let us look at some of the detail. We currently have an earnings threshold of £7,400 for families on universal credit, but that does not include income from benefits—those payments are not included—so household incomes can be considerably higher than that threshold without children being excluded from a free school meal. Extending free school meals to all families on universal credit, for example, would carry a significant financial cost, quickly running into billions of pounds, and yet some of those households have incomes exceeding £40,000 a year. Those are clearly not among the most disadvantaged, and other households would have a greater need of our support.
As every family knows, it costs more to put a healthy meal on the table than it did even just a year ago, and it is no different for free school meal provision. We have therefore increased core funding for schools. This year, the free school meals factor in the national funding formula has increased to £470 per pupil to take into account inflation and other cost pressures that schools face. We are also providing extra core funding through the schools supplementary grant, which represents a significant increase of £2.5 billion for the 2022-23 compared with last year. We are also spending £600 million on universal infant free school meals each year as well as about £40 million on delivering free meals to around 90,000 disadvantaged students in further education. In addition to that, we will provide more than £200 million a year for the next three years to deliver healthy food during holiday periods through our holiday activities and food programme. We are also funding breakfast clubs in more than 2,000 schools, and the school fruit and vegetable scheme and Healthy Start vouchers add further support.
The Government are committed to a sustainable, long-term approach to tackling poverty—especially child poverty—and supporting people on lower incomes. There are currently about 1.27 million job vacancies across the UK, and we believe that the best and most sustainable way of tackling child poverty is to ensure that parents get the right sort of help and support to move into work. We know that employment—I am talking primarily about a full-time job—offers the best chance of reducing the risks of poverty. Our multimillion-pound plan for jobs has protected, supported and created jobs, and will continue to help people across the UK to find work and develop skills to progress their careers and increase their earnings.
Kim Johnson
I thank the Minister for giving way. She makes the point about work being the route out of poverty, but as I pointed out in my speech there are vast numbers of parents who are working and are ineligible to apply for free school meals. Work is not the route out of poverty, and some work needs to be done on that.
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. In my new role, I have already committed to keeping eligibility under review.
Today, the Government set out decisive action to support people and businesses with their energy bills, tackling the root causes of the issues in the UK energy market through increased supply and ensuring the country is not left in the same position again. Under plans for the new energy price guarantee, a typical UK household will pay no more than £2,500 a year on its energy bills for the next two years from 1 October, saving the average household £1,000 a year from October, based on current energy prices. That support is in addition to the £400 energy bill discount for all households. Together, they will bring costs close to where the energy price cap stands today. The new guarantee will apply to households in Great Britain, with the same level of support made available to households in Northern Ireland. The action will deliver substantial benefits to the economy, boosting growth and curbing inflation by between four to five points, reducing the cost of servicing national debt. This historic intervention comes after a failure to invest in home-grown energy and to drive reform in the energy market.
Kim Johnson
Again, the money being made available will not target the most vulnerable, because we know there are thousands still in crisis who are likely to pay an extra £500 on top of what they were already going to pay. We know that the most disadvantaged who have payment meters often have to pay more than those who have direct debits. How will the Government address those major, urgent issues for the vulnerable at this time?
Kelly Tolhurst
Ahead of today, we had already announced a significant package of support for those most in need—I outlined the extra £400. Local authorities also have the household support grant scheme, which is accessible by people who are in need and is an opportunity for those who have fallen through certain gaps to access funding they may require.
We need to invest in home-grown energy and drive reform in the energy market to secure the UK’s supply. Putin’s weaponisation of the energy supply has exposed the UK’s vulnerabilities to the volatility of global markets, coupled with a regulatory framework no longer fit for purpose which is driving up bills and holding back economic growth. A new six-month scheme for businesses and other non-domestic energy users, including public sector organisations like schools, will offer equivalent support to that being provided for consumers. That will protect them from soaring energy costs and provide them with the certainty they need to plan their business. After the initial six-month period, the Government will provide ongoing, focused support for vulnerable industries. There will be a review in three months’ time to consider where that should be targeted to make sure that the most in need get support.
Rachael Maskell
Let me bring the Minister back to the debate about free school meals, because that is really important and I want to make sure that we make the most of this time and opportunity. One of the issues that I raised was holiday hunger and the fact that many children go without food during the school holidays, and that still continues. What steps will she take to ensure that all children who experience food poverty get access to a hot meal every day?
Kelly Tolhurst
It was important to mention the announcement today about help with energy costs, because those costs are playing a large role in the pressures that all households face, and that absolutely feeds into this debate.
The hon. Lady raises an important question about free school meals over the summer period. For families who have been eligible for that support, the Government are investing more than £600 million in our holiday activities and food programme over the next three years. That funding is being distributed through 152 local authorities. This summer, our holiday activities fund again provided healthy meals, enriched activities and free childcare places to children from low-income families. That benefited their health, wellbeing and learning and contributed to the recovery from covid-19.
Over the summer of 2021, we reached more than 600,000 children and young people in England through the holiday activities fund, including more than 495,000 children who were eligible for free school meals. That meant that hundreds of thousands of children from low-income families benefited from healthy food and increased activities.
Navendu Mishra
The Minister is being very generous with her time. The figure of £600 million will effectively be significantly lower now, with inflation and the cost of living crisis. Will she address the need going forward, rather than sharing the Government’s numbers from last year, because £600 million will be a lot less—given that the rate of inflation is over 10% now—than it was last year?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Gentleman. However, one of the benefits of the holiday activities fund is that the decision making is given to local authorities, so that they can design systems that meet the need in their areas and make sure that they design tailored programmes and deliver services to meet the individual needs of the people they serve. He should understand that the amount is £600 million over three years, so there is £200 million a year.
In my constituency in other roles that I held, I spent a lot of time working with families and young children before I became a Member of Parliament. I am very passionate about this role and am looking forward to working with Members across the House. I do not have children but I have nieces. However, someone does not have to be a parent to find the idea of a hungry child plain wrong, as I think we all agree across the House. We can do—and are doing—something about it and I promise hon. Members that child wellbeing and nutrition is right at the top of my priorities.
Mike Kane
I welcome the Minister to her position. Having worked with her on the transport brief at the start of the pandemic, I know that she will be diligent in the role.
Even though my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) is a Liverpool fan, she mentioned Marcus Rashford—one of the most famous child hunger campaigners in the country, and a famous son of Wythenshawe in my constituency. He grew up just down the road; one of us is a great footballer, one of us is a great politician, and I am neither. If it were offered, would the Minister be prepared to meet him in her new role?
Kelly Tolhurst
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I very rarely refuse a request for a meeting. I am hoping to have many months to meet stakeholders, interested parties and people who feel as passionate as I do about these areas.
I am confident that the safeguards we have in place mean that once a child is through the school gates in the morning, the one thing that they should never have to worry about is where their next meal is coming from. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside for her patience with my being new to the post, and I look forward to working with her.
Question put and agreed to.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twentieth sitting)
Thursday 8th September 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 September 2022 - (8 Sep 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Hon. Gentlemen are welcome to take off their jackets if they wish to do so. I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink, except for the water provided, is permitted during sittings of this Committee. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. I welcome the Minister to his place.
Schedule 11
Infrastructure Levy
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 162, in schedule 11, page 288, line 11, after “development” insert “of the area”.
This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with inserted section 204A(2) on page 282 and ensure that consideration of viability relates to the area as a whole.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 163, in schedule 11, page 289, line 33, leave out “or require”.
This amendment and Amendment 164 would prevent the Secretary of State imposing a nil rate, differential rates, reductions, or a minimum threshold below which IL is not charged and ensure that rates are set by the charging authority.
Amendment 164, in schedule 11, page 289, line 36, leave out “or require”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 163.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a pleasure to reconvene with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I warmly welcome the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam to the caretaker role that he has bravely taken on today. He is the third Minister I have engaged with in proceedings on the Bill. The shadow Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities team are setting new records when it comes to the ministerial attrition rate. It may be overly ambitious to hope that we can get through five Ministers by the completion of proceedings on the Bill, but we live in hope.
On a serious note, I place on record our thanks to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for his efforts in taking the Bill through Committee in recent weeks, including before the summer recess, and for the constructive way in which he did so. I hope that we can continue in that vein today.
We had, in our last sitting, an extensive debate on the infrastructure levy, and touched on the issue of viability as part of the design of any new proposal. This group of amendments relates to the infrastructure levy rate-setting process, and how viability testing will be used to inform it. Once again, allowing for the fact that we do not have the detail we need, and for the fact that the required forthcoming regulations will be subject to further consultation, I am assuming for the purposes of these amendments—largely because of the remarkable similarity between schedule 11 and the provisions in the Planning Act 2008 that gave effect to the community infrastructure levy—that the Government are minded to base the IL rate-setting process on that which applies to the process for adopting a CIL charging schedule.
If that is the case, the process will require charging authorities to undertake—if not directly, then by commissioning consultants for the purpose—an area-wide viability assessment. Such assessments would be similar to—and indeed could, where appropriate, be combined with—the area-wide viability testing that forms part of the evidence base for the examination of new local plans. As “full viability assessments”, these will involve a large number of residual land valuations for different development typologies, and potentially strategic sites, to test what IL rates could be supported in different circumstances. It is likely that they would have to consider all aspects of development appraisal, including average values, costs, profit and land value, rather than using gross development value as the value-based metric used to determine specific IL liabilities.
The new levy has broader scope than the CIL, incorporating as it does both infrastructure and affordable housing. Higher rates will be necessary as a result. Given that, and given that GDV—the metric to be used—does not take into account site-specific development costs, IL has the potential to result in significant non-negotiable liabilities, so the stakes involved in the IL rate-setting will be far higher than those that pertain in the CIL charging schedule adoption process. Thus it is almost certain that the IL rate-setting process in any given area will be heavily contested; landowners and developers will task their representatives with challenging the scope of the assessment, its methodology, inputs, assumptions and conclusions, with a view to reducing IL rates and their future liability. There is therefore a strong case for putting in place additional measures to ensure that the IL rate-setting examination process is fair, and I hope that the Government are exploring what might be done to ensure that the Planning Inspectorate is able to draw on the necessary expertise so that that is the case.
The aim of amendment 162 is to ensure that the bar for viability testing in the IL rate-setting and examination process is not set unreasonably high, and that there is therefore a more level playing field between charging authorities and those who might potentially object to a proposed IL rate or rates. The amendment seeks to avoid authorities being compelled to either undertake onerously detailed analysis, bring forward overly complex charging structures or set artificially low rates to compensate for the risk that the Bill creates of developers arguing that specific projects in an area are unviable. It does that by specifying, using the language used in proposed new section 204A(2) of the 2008 Act, that when setting IL rates, charging authorities must consider the economic viability of development in the area as a whole. That would make it clear that in the rate-setting process, the test of viability should not be so specific as to relate to individual sites, unless perhaps they are of strategic significance to the charging authority area, but should instead take into account viability across a range of sites, and the overall delivery of the amount of development envisaged in the local plan. That is in line with current practice, and would mean that IL rates would not be unduly influenced by the characteristics of development sites that may not be typical of the area, and that could result in nil or particularly low rates being set across the whole of it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling the amendments. It is clear that the system is not working, because when going through the planning process many developers argue that the site is no longer viable, and therefore make changes to the plans. What should be put in place to ensure that we have more accurate viability testing before planning permission is granted?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that well-made point. We had, as she will know, an extensive discussion on viability in the last sitting. The system is flawed in many respects, but there are ways in which it has been improved in recent years, and it could be improved further. The Mayor’s threshold approach in London is a good example of how that can be done; it draws in relevant expertise to ensure that contentious sites undergo a full viability assessment.
Our issue with the proposed system is that it is premised on removing the viability issue from the process entirely, but the point here is that the system certainly does not do that; at the rate-setting stage, viability is very much an issue. That needs to be addressed through the amendments. Amendment 162 would ensure that IL rate-setting testing and examination cannot be unfairly manipulated by developers seeking to drive down levy rates, because the amendment would clarify that charging authorities will not be expected to test every development site in their area. It would mitigate the risk that the infrastructure necessary to support development will not come forward, and that amounts of affordable housing will be reduced.
Amendments 163 and 164 are necessary to give full effect to the Government’s commitment that the new system will be, to quote the policy paper, a “locally determined Infrastructure Levy”, with Il rates set locally by charging authorities. The amendments do that by altering the provisions that give the Secretary of State the power to impose specific IL rates, nil rates or minimum thresholds that have not emerged as a result of an examination, or been justified with reference to local evidence. By preventing the Secretary of State from overriding a charging authority in those respects, the two amendments seek to avoid a scenario in which a charging authority is either prevented from developing its own IL rates or, after the lengthy and resource-intensive process of determining the IL rates and thresholds appropriate for its area, and after having them verified by an independent examiner, has them overridden by the Secretary of State.
There is nothing in the Bill to ensure that IL rates imposed by the Secretary of State in the way that the Bill allows would be based on local evidence or subject to independent assessment. There is therefore an obvious risk that the Secretary of State may, on occasion, be persuaded to bypass the IL rate-setting process on spurious grounds. We feel strongly that the process should be genuinely local, and that charging authorities should be confident, if they develop a rate or rates that are approved in examination, that they will be able to apply those without interference from the Department. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on each of these important amendments.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, and to address the Committee and answer the questions raised. The hon. Gentleman talked about attrition rates, which are important for all of us as constituency MPs, and we all want to make sure that we get this right. I, too, thank the former Minister for Housing, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), for the work that he has done over the summer.
I begin by acknowledging the work of the Committee so far. The planning reforms will clearly be important in supporting our growth agenda, so I look forward to the next few days. I understand why the hon. Gentleman seeks to introduce the amendments. I will try to clarify some of the points, and to explain why we do not believe that the amendments are necessary. I will start with amendment 162.
Local planning authorities will be responsible for setting infrastructure levy rates, and for charging and collecting the levy, and they can spend the levy revenues on local priorities. When setting rates, they must have regard to the economic viability of the development of the area. I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that proposed new section 204A(2) of the Planning Act 2008 already ensures that that is the case. It states that the overall purpose of the levy,
“is to ensure that costs incurred in supporting the development of an area and in achieving any purpose specified under section 204N(5) can be funded (wholly or partly) by owners or developers of land in a way that does not make development of the area economically unviable.”
The overall purpose of the levy applies to all levy regulations, including those made under proposed new section 204G(4)(a), to which the hon. Gentleman has proposed additional text. This means that when charging authorities set rates or other criteria, they must have regard to matters specified in levy regulations relating to the economic viability of development. Although I understand his point, I hope that with that explanation, he will agree that amendment 162 is unnecessary.
Amendments 163 and 164 would prevent the Secretary of State from requiring, through regulations, that differential rates of the levy be set. They would also prevent the Secretary of State from specifying in regulations the basis on which a threshold for such rates may be determined. Again, I recognise that the aim of the amendments is to ensure that the rates are set solely by the charging authority, but I reassure the Committee that local rate-setting is indeed essential to the levy design. However, the levy must be charged in a coherent and consistent way, so that it meets its objectives of capturing more value and raising more revenue for local planning authorities, while maintaining the viability of developments across an area.
How the levy is charged should reflect the different amounts of additional value that might be generated across different kinds of development. In some circumstances, it might be necessary to require in the levy regulations that rates be set at higher or lower levels. For example, the additional value created by new floor space might be a lot greater than that created when existing floor space undergoes change of use. Similarly, the additional value generated by a residential development might be a lot higher than the amount generated by some types of commercial development, and it is right that the difference in value is reflected in levy rates.
There might be types of development on which it is simply not appropriate to charge the levy, or on which it would be appropriate to charge a reduced rate. Providing for that in the levy regulations will ensure the coherence of the regime that I talked about.
How much additional value is generated by a development depends in part on how much it cost to build, and on the value of the land before development takes place. The minimum threshold will broadly account for the costs of development in an area by charging the levy on the final gross development value. Above the minimum threshold, the levy is charged only on the additional value of a development. Without a minimum threshold, the levy would not be able to reliably capture more of the value uplift in different development types and land uses, while maintaining viability. The ability for levy regulations to require that thresholds for nil or reduced rates be determined in a specified way, including the ability to adjust them with reference to the cost of development in a charging authority’s area, is key to ensuring that this aspect of the levy function works in a coherent and consistent way.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate that comprehensive answer from the Minister, but I am afraid to tell him that I am not reassured. I am not sure—I will happily go back and check the record—that he addressed my specific points. As I said, our concern is that the language in proposed new section 204G(4)(a), when it comes to specifying how viability is handled within the rate-setting process, refers simply to “development”. It is not consistent with the language in proposed new section 204A(2), which specifically refers to “development of an area”.
The Minister spoke in general terms about the local rate-setting process. I take no issue with that. It is absolutely right that the local charging authority looks at viability as part of that process, but the specific concern that we have, as I said, is that it may be forced to assess the viability of every site in the area that it oversees, rather than being able to undertake a general assessment of viability in that area and not have specific sites skew the results. This could potentially have very serious implications for the levy rates that are set and the ability of developers to try to drive down those rates as part of the process. We are not satisfied on that score.
On amendments 163 and 164, we do not take issue with the fact that there needs to be a minimum threshold or the need for specified ways of setting or adjusting the levy rates. Our issue is with the powers that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to intervene and overturn a locally determined rate that has gone through an examination process. The Minister has not convinced me that there is a good reason for those powers. On that basis, I am keen to make the point that we think this is one of the many weaknesses in the Government’s proposed infrastructure levy, so I am minded to press amendment 162 to a vote.
Paul Scully
Let me just answer a couple of points as the hon. Member considers whether to press the amendment to a vote. I assure him that charging the levies is very much for the local authorities. The intention is to not have a system that is different for every single development, because that becomes incredibly unwieldy—that is the point of introducing this system rather than the existing, technically complex system, where developers, who have deeper pockets than many local authorities, and more expertise, get round section 106 and CIL and so on. If they so choose, local authorities should be able to have different levies in different areas within their remit, but that should not be just from development to development. That is the intention of the measures here.
The powers of the Secretary of State reflect the current system. As I mentioned, the Secretary of State has powers under the existing system and we are reserving that same right, which is to be used only very sparingly.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that useful further clarification of the Government’s intention, but in many ways he made my point for me. No one is taking issue with the fact that the Bill specifies that local charging authorities set the rate. That is absolutely right. It is an advantage of the proposed system vis-à-vis that outlined in the 2020 “Planning for the Future” White Paper, which envisaged a nationally set rate or rates. The issue we have—the Minister spoke directly to this point—is the inequality of arms between developers and local planning authorities. Our concern is that the language in the Bill will allow developers, not in the way they do with the current section 106 system but under the new system, to use their extra resources, skills and expertise to drive down levy rates at the point at which they are set, due to the way that viability is dealt with in proposed new section 204G(4)(a). I am not satisfied by the Minister’s comments, and I will press amendment 162 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 168, in schedule 11, page 288, line 25, at end insert—
“(4A) IL regulations must make provision for a sliding scale of charges increasing in proportion to the share of the development that is on greenfield land, for the purposes of incentivising brownfield development, unless any development on greenfield land is offset by the re-greening of an agreed area of brownfield land in a densely developed or populated area.”
This amendment is offered as an alternative proposition to Amendment 59, adding safeguards intended to prevent extremely dense development in urban centres with an undersupply of open space.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 59, in schedule 11, page 288, line 25, at end insert—
“(4A) IL regulations must make provision for a sliding scale of charges increasing in proportion to the share of the development that is on greenfield land, for the purposes of incentivising brownfield development.”
This amendment would require rates of the Infrastructure Levy to be varied in line with the proportion of the development that is on greenfield land in order to promote brownfield development.
Rachael Maskell
It is good to see you in the Chair again, Mrs Murray. I welcome the Minister to his place.
Amendments 168 and 59 have the same objective. Labour has set out clearly that we believe it is important that brownfield sites be developed on first. Many sites across the country have been wasteland for too long. We have a housing crisis and there are economic opportunities, so we very much want to see developments. Such sites are often old industrial areas, which are begging for housing development.
York has the largest brownfield site in the country, adjacent to the station, so we have obviously given much thought to this issue. I am glad that the Government supported our call to make it a site of development. What will go on there is another matter of dispute, but it is welcome that, the site having been derelict for 30 years, we now see roadworks on it—I was looking at them just last weekend—thanks to the additional funding to release it that has been locked in by the railways, but my amendments seek to go further than that.
The White Paper—it is important that we refer to it—suggested that development could be brought forward almost on street corners if sufficient land was available in developed areas. Of course, that takes away vital green space from local communities. My amendments therefore seek to recognise the value of green space in urban environments. It is crucial that we join up the agendas across Government—I often think the Government think too much in their own silo—when looking at the opportunities to create green spaces in urban areas. They could address environmental issues, including drainage and flooding, and mental health issues.
In my constituency, brownfield sites’ being turned over for development has led to a very heated-up urban centre, which has serious consequences. The York Central site and other developments on the west side of the city are taking up spaces that were either old industrial land or school playing fields, which means that we have more traffic. As a result, the west side of York will become gridlocked because the development has not been properly thought through. Within the planning process, the developers are referring back to our local transport plan from 2011, which is well out of date.
If we keep developing on brownfield sites without thinking about the wider consequences, it will have a significant impact on the urban environment and will ultimately create more congestion and pollution, which will have a significant impact on the local community, whose frustrations will grow. We have to make sure that we talk about infrastructure and the transition from car use to public transport or active travel, and we need to take a more holistic view rather than focus on brownfield site development, but my amendment seeks to go further than that in recognising the importance of having some of that land converted into green spaces.
I can give a fantastic example in Tang Hall, a densely populated area of York. It used to be the old refuse site and would have been classified as rich for development, but it was turned into St Nicks environment centre and an incredibly important space for wellbeing. The centre runs opportunities for people experiencing mental health challenges and engages in environmental projects, thereby improving the wellbeing of all residents in the local area. That was a project of yesteryear, but as the housing crisis, which is significant, has grown in York, I have noticed that areas where there is the greatest deprivation—somewhere such as Clifton, where life expectancy is 10 years less than elsewhere in York—also have the least green space.
The former Bootham Park Hospital was on public land, and people would go there and walk around. That space will be handed over to a private company with the disposal of the hospital, but Bootham School will take over the land for its playing fields, which will lock out the public. However, the rest of the estate, where there is currently green space, will be turned into further housing. That involves changing somewhere that is green but categorised as a brownfield site into a developed area, which means that the area will lose public green space. People will not be able to walk their dogs, get fresh air and improve their mental health. We know the correlation between mental health and deprivation, so that is really important.
I can give another example. Acomb had a secondary school in what was the old Acomb Park area, and the school had playing fields. Although the school has been disposed of, the area has been used by the public as a free park for the community, which has been really important. However, the land would be categorised as a brownfield site, and our local council has the intention to develop the site and put more housing there. We desperately need housing—I am not decrying that—but we should re-categorise some brownfield space as green space and then use some current green space as brown space, thereby getting the green lungs into the city. We know from research that that was very much the focus over 100 years ago, because that was how York was built out.
Putting in green lungs will increase the opportunities to improve mental and physical health, to have a better environment and to address some of the issues around pollution and so on. It will also improve the whole area by creating public space and a sense of community. If we see a direct swap with current greenfield sites, I do not believe that the area should be penalised for not building on brownfield sites but choosing to build on greenfield sites. This is about providing greater opportunity and recognising that we can develop brownfield sites first but put in those green lungs in order to place the proposed housing in other areas. We should not penalise local authorities for improving public health and wider aspects of their community. That is a perspective that a joined-up Government would be looking at: how we improve not just homes and units, but communities and people, which is what planning should be all about. My amendment seeks to provide that opportunity, recognising the reality of this in highly populated areas in particular.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I join you in welcoming the Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, to his place on the Front Bench. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Central; I recognise the point she made about green lungs in urban environments, and about parkland and green spaces being in towns and cities up and down the land.
Listening to her comments, I remembered my own time in local government some moons ago, in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. We gave planning permission to one of Europe’s largest regeneration projects on brownfield land, crossing the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, around Earl’s Court and West Kensington. That development had multiple parks and lots of green space locked into its design, and into the planning permissions that were granted. It was, in fact, the incoming Labour council in 2014 that undid all of that and turned it over. While I have not been there in some time, I think I am right in saying that Earl’s Court still sits in rubble, as opposed to housing and beautiful green parks.
I will speak principally to amendment 59, which is tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), to which I too have put my name. It goes to the nub of the concerns that many Members across the House have about planning reform and the way we should go forward. There is a debate about where we should build; should we build on brownfield, or should we build on green space—green belt, greenfield, agricultural land and so on? When I look at my constituency, covering 335 square miles of north Buckinghamshire, 90% of that land is agricultural land. We have seen substantial development over the last 20 or 30 years. Some villages that started off small are now almost unrecognisable because of the vast housing estates that have been built, and which continue to be built on greenfield land around them. I think of villages such as Haddenham—close to my home village, for total transparency—where, yet again, another huge acreage of agricultural land is being built on for homes right now. Buckinghamshire Council, a good Conservative-run council, has a clear vision to build the housing the county needs through the light densification of some of the towns in Buckinghamshire.
However, what amendment 59 principally talks to is the need to incentivise developers to consider brownfield sites when they look at where to build the homes needed in Buckinghamshire and the rest of the country, and that they are not disincentivised because it is so much easier for them to build on greenfield, where they do not have the decontamination costs and all the other expensive costs of developing out brownfield sites. We can use the infrastructure levy to do that. If there is a sliding scale that says to developers that we can create that incentive through the taxation system and the infrastructure levy and potentially make these things cost-neutral, we can take the challenges of decontamination and other costs associated with brownfield land out of the equation for them. In that way, they will pay less infrastructure levy for building out on brownfield sites than they would for destroying the great British countryside.
It is not a perfect solution by any stretch of the imagination, because we still need the money for the roads, the GP surgeries, the schools and everything else the infrastructure levy is there to provide. However, unless we can create a system that really does come good on the Government’s welcome and solid commitment to building on brownfield first, I fear—and I had another developer in my inbox yesterday wanting to build out on a partially greenfield site in Waddesdon in my constituency—that all we will see is planning applications come in for greenfield development, and the brownfield first policy will not be realised.
I therefore urge the Minster to consider how we can use the infrastructure levy, in the spirit of amendment 59, to ensure that there are not financial penalties on developers for developing on brownfield land, so that we make that brownfield first policy come true. In that way, we can give local authorities that have lost a considerable chunk of greenfield and agricultural land in recent years—food security is important to all of us, and it is a pretty simple proposition that the more agriculture land we lose, the less food we can grow—the tools and powers as planning authorities to say that certain proposals are not what they need right now. In some areas, the proposals might be fine and might be what they want but, to use Buckinghamshire as an example, we could put in the differential rate enabled by this amendment to protect our greenfield and agricultural land and to drive development of the homes, commercial units and businesses we need on to the brownfield sites that exist predominantly in towns, and in some villages, in Buckinghamshire.
I urge the Government to look at the spirit of the amendment and to incorporate it into what will undoubtedly, after the leadership election, be quite a different Bill by the time it emerges on Report, to see whether we can make these proposals a reality.
Matthew Pennycook
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central on amendment 168. She rightly speaks about the importance of green space in urban areas and about how we can increase the rate of it, if anything, when it comes to individual planning applications.
I will speak primarily to amendment 59, because I think it is worth putting the following on the record. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Buckingham is making, but my reading of the Bill is that the framework established in part 4 already allows charging authorities to set different IL rates according to existing and proposed uses, and those could include different rates for greenfield and brownfield sites. So the means to resolve the issue he is driving are already in the Bill, and Buckinghamshire Council will be able to set different rates on brownfield and greenfield sites if the Bill is given Royal Assent.
Our concern is that, by seeking to make mandatory a sliding scale of charges relating to land type or existing typologies by site, amendment 59 could result in reduced infrastructure contributions and lower levels of affordable housing in areas where development mainly or exclusively takes place on brownfield land, because it would prevent charging authorities from setting rates that are effective and suitable for their area and that consider local circumstances. For example, a mandatory sliding scale of charges, as proposed in the amendment, could result in the expectation that a charging authority whose development sites are entirely or mainly on brownfield land would set low IL rates to incentivise development in that area and disincentivise development in other areas with fewer brownfield sites.
Furthermore, brownfield development in higher-value areas will almost certainly generate sufficient values to support higher levels of contributions than would be possible on greenfield sites. As such, a mandatory sliding scale of charges would mean the loss of developer contributions that could viably have been delivered on brownfield sites, with no assurance that this would be offset by a higher level of contributions on greenfield land. Labour firmly believes in the principle of brownfield first, as do the Government, and that is absolutely right. However, we feel strongly that the setting of different IL rates for different land types should ultimately be determined by individual charging authorities taking account of local circumstances, rather than by the method proposed in amendment 59.
Paul Scully
The Government are already providing strong encouragement for the take-up of brownfield sites—we are all agreed on that—and are prioritising suitable brownfield land for development wherever possible. There is significant investment through the £550 million brownfield housing fund and the £75 million brownfield land release fund to unlock brownfield land across different communities across the country. Our national planning policy framework makes it clear that local authorities should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land in settlements for homes and other identified planning need.
We recognise the importance of delivery on brownfield sites, as has been raised by the hon. Member for York Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. However, we believe that that is better achieved through planning policy rather than through a fixed algorithm that automatically increases levy charges on the basis of the proportion of greenfield to brownfield. This further amendment would add a new element to the levy formula, which would still allow for greater greenfield development in certain circumstances, but would remain a formulaic approach rather than a policy-driven one.
The proportion of greenfield development within the local authority should continue to be policy driven at that local level, as we have heard. I agree with the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that it should be the local authority—the charging authority—driving that, based on their local circumstances. In any case, proposed new section 204G(5) and (8) in schedule 11 already contains powers for the levy regulations to permit or require local planning authorities to set different levy rates for different kinds of development, and proposed new section 204G(4) makes it clear that the local authority must have regard to the increases in land value that result from planning permission. That provides a framework where, if increases in land values are higher, as we have heard is often the case with greenfield development, higher rates can be set. On that, we agree in terms of policy.
In answer to the hon. Member for York Central, I totally understand her drive when she talks about buildings going up to five storeys, and it is important that it is the local area that determines exactly these things. Whether it is the view of the Minister or the affordability of properties, that should not be determined centrally with an artificial algorithm. It very much needs to be locally driven, so that local families and communities benefit from housing themselves and from the economic value of bringing in new people and new investment. It is about getting that balance right, and that will change for different areas. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member’s tour de force—that tour of York, and I suspect I will get a bit more about green spaces later this morning.
Paul Scully
A lot more, the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position.
Clearly, we do need those green lungs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said. Those of us who have an urban, suburban or semi-urban area need to get that balance right, and I would much rather that that was done through a policy framework than by an algorithm, which can be game-played by developers. It is important to get this right at a local level, so it is important to get for local authorities to get the local plan in, so that they can shape their place. They have the determination to do so. For those reasons, amendments 168 and 59 are not necessary.
Rachael Maskell
I thank the Minister for his authoritative words in recognising the importance of green lungs in urban environments, because they are so important. Often in planning we lose the wider benefits we are trying to achieve when we look just at bricks and mortar as opposed to people and places. It is so important that we bring that to the fore in this debate, so I will certainly refer back to his speech when talking about this issue. It is important to draw that out as we consider how we take planning forward.
Of course, I am disappointed that the Minister does not want to advance my amendment, but I will withdraw it at this stage and see on Report whether the Government will recognise the opportunity to stress the importance of green in brown areas. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 169, in schedule 11, page 294, leave out lines 15 to 28 and insert
“(a) roads and other transport facilities, including routes for good quality active travel including cycling, walking and micro-mobility, parking facilities and street infrastructure including benches,
(b) flood defences,
(c) schools and other educational facilities including nurseries, play areas and family friendly areas,
(d) medical facilities including dentists, diagnostic hubs, general practices and other community spaces to address mental health and promote wellbeing,
(e) sporting and recreational facilities including youth centres and skate parks,
(f) open spaces,
(g) affordable houses,
(h) facilities and equipment for emergency and rescue services,
(i) facilities and spaces which—
(i) preserve or improve the natural environment, or
(ii) enable or facilitate enjoyment of the natural environment,
(iii) provide outdoor space for communities including allotments and forest schools,
(iv) provide flood and drought mitigation,
(j) space for energy generation
(k) space for business incubation
(l) community buildings for social, cultural, religious purposes,
(m) community facilities including post offices, cafes, libraries, support and advice centres
(n) day centres for the elderly or disabled people, including for the purposes of state-provided day or residential care.”
This amendment broadens the scope of inserted section 204N(5), which defines “infrastructure” for the purposes of the Infrastructure Levy.
I appreciate being able to talk about this amendment, not least because although the schedule—I do not mean any offence—is a list of areas the infrastructure levy could be focused on, it is not a comprehensive list. Therefore, I wanted to expand on areas I think are important for the Government to consider in the planning process at this stage.
We are going through perhaps the greatest change to our economy in our lifetimes, whether that was caused by Brexit, covid or, now, the energy crisis, and none of us knows what is around the corner. As we look at planning, we need to think in a more holistic way. Many of these crises are forcing us into that space, and in many ways we have had to do that thinking, which could be positive. Therefore, in looking at the opportunities available to us, I would argue that the definitions in the schedule are too narrow and that the list should be more expansive.
It could be argued that my amendment puts down an even more expansive list but still is not comprehensive, and I will come back to that in a moment because I recognise that a number of other areas could be included. I am sure the Minister will argue that many of the things that I have listed in my amendment could easily fit into some of the points already in schedule 11. However, my amendment provides an emphasis. For instance, proposed new section 204N(3)(a) in schedule 11, which covers
“roads and other transport facilities”,
sets out a car-focused future. Of course, our future should not be dependent on roads and cars. We have active travel, so we should be talking much more about cycleways and footpaths, and opportunities for micro-mobility, which we are seeing the advent of. Proposed new paragraph (a) emphasises development around a hydrocarbon future, as opposed to moving away from that.
I could talk a lot about many of the other areas. We will concur around such issues as flood defences—York is unfortunately at the top of the league for flooding—but I want to come on to such things as schools and other educational facilities. For instance, what about nurseries and play areas? We know that investment in early years is really needed. That goes beyond an educational facility; we need play areas for children. I would argue that play is education, but would that fit within the definition when we came to argue such points within our local planning systems? We need to ensure that there are family-friendly areas and areas where people can feel safe and included. Looking at expanding the definition under proposed new section 204N(3)(c) is very important.
On medical facilities, the world of medicine is changing. Diagnostic hubs are coming forward from the Government, which I very much welcome. We are seeking to get them in my constituency, and we need to think about health in a very different way than we have in the past. Medical facilities will not necessarily just be clinics or hospitals, as we have seen in the past. We are moving much more into social prescribing, particularly on mental health. When it comes to mental health and wellbeing facilities, we need to look at the most advanced place pioneering mental health work, the city of Trieste in Italy, which does not have hospitals for mental health, because people have facilities in the community. Would that be included here, or would it be seen as something very different? Again, I would argue that the brief definition in the Bill is quite outmoded within its own context.
Proposed new section 204N(3)(e) covers “sporting and recreational facilities”, but what about youth centres and youth clubs? The Government brought forward a proposal to develop 300 new youth facilities, and of course we welcome them into our communities. Sadly, in York we are losing ours, but if we introduce more youth clubs and facilities where do they fit into the proposals? We know that we absolutely need them.
My amendment goes further in looking at some of the areas that we particularly need to focus on. My proposed new section 204N(3)(i) focuses on the need particularly for allotments. We have not heard much about allotments in the debate on planning, but I have been talking to the York Allotments Charitable Incorporated Organisation, which oversees our allotments. YACIO has been talking about the impact that allotments have on mental and physical health. We need to go back over 100 years, and look at New Earswick for the model regarding allotments. Many will know that New Earswick is the first garden village in the country. It is not in my constituency; it is in that of my neighbour, the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy). It was designed for urban clearance—for moving people out of the slums and tenant homes in York into a new village—but every home was allocated an allotment. This was family housing, where people had some garden space, but also an allotment.
If we think of today and the food crisis, and the mental health challenges that we all face in our constituencies, having allotments available for families is incredible for the community and for wellbeing. In York 1,500 people are currently waiting for allotments. There is a real shortage. Being able to develop allotments through the amendment would be really good for the wellbeing of our communities and for the people waiting for them. I said that 1,500 people are waiting, but we have 1,350 allotment spaces, so some people are being told that it could be 10 years before they get an allotment. Bringing plots forward could, again, join up Government, tick lots of boxes, and make things available for our wider communities. I think that is really important. s
What the Rowntrees achieved there with their pioneering social work could have a significant impact if we think about the need. In urban spaces in particular, more and more flats and apartments are being built, but people do not have any green spaces, so where do they have the opportunity to grow their own veg? Community gardens and community allotments where there is a collective share are really important in giving people the opportunity to grow their own food. At a time when there is a food crisis, this is a step for many families in food poverty towards greater resilience. These crises are focusing our attention, and we have to think about these things in our modern age.
Turning to my proposed new section 204N(3)(j), the Government are missing a massive trick—I want to stress that this is so important. I was just listening to a BBC World Service programme, which a constituent drew to my attention, about what other countries are doing in relation to energy. It was a fascinating listen; I do not know whether the Minister heard it. Particularly in the Netherlands, but also in Scandinavia, they are making facilities for local energy production on the outskirts of areas. We are currently in an energy crisis, and we all obviously want the very best for our constituents. I notice that the energy debate has started in the main Chamber; I am sure we are all longing to see what the exact proposals are, but in Scandinavia, they allocate land to be used for energy development and production. That is renewable energy production for a local community, so there is a dependence on local energy, which of course can be built into wider networks.
It is really important that the Bill puts into the planning system those allocated opportunities for the IL to be used for future energy production. If we do not have that in the Bill, those spaces will disappear, and we will miss that opportunity. If we are looking at the opportunity presented by wind, solar and in other areas, this could be part of the solution, not only in relation to local energy prices and the costs that people are having to pay now, but also job opportunities on those sites and for future energy supplies. The fact is that other countries are ahead of us. We often focus on what is happening here in the UK, trying to get those plasters out and stretch them as far as we can, but if we look to Finland, we can see that they are instituting microgeneration and large generation of energy for their local communities. That creates a direct relationship, but it is also fantastic for the climate.
We should be thinking about future opportunities. I think it is remiss of the Government to not include those opportunities in this Bill, so I want the Minister to give this issue some thought as the Bill goes through Parliament. Obviously, it would be great to have support for that today, but if at a later stage of the Bill we can ensure that there is space for energy generation, that would be a real advance and would represent a commitment to the people that energy challenges will be addressed.
I also want to draw attention to my proposed new section 204N(3)(k), which deals with business incubation. We know where there are opportunities for investing in business growth. Often, we think about growing out housing, but we also need to build a high-skill economy with good wages for the future. We want to give our entrepreneurs opportunities; they need incubators and accelerators to grow their businesses, root them and ensure they are successful. We know the great success that comes from businesses, but they need those start-up opportunities. Again, I have been hearing about amazing projects that are building that infrastructure, but it has been because somebody has given them a peppercorn rent or they have had generosity from elsewhere. If we are building new conurbations in particular, we need to think about rooting opportunities in those areas for new businesses and ensuring they get the support that they need to grow, but getting that first building—that first step—can be incredibly challenging. I would certainly want to see that in the legislation.
That takes me to my final proposed new paragraph, although it also draws into some of the other areas. When seeing new developments, we often see a lack of opportunity to celebrate the diversity of our communities. I have been greatly concerned about that in York. Many moons ago, there was a proposal for a cultural centre that was kiboshed for whatever reason and never went forward. We do not have a cultural centre in York. We are increasingly seeing a diverse community and that is fantastic, but not places where people can congregate and socialise. We are seeing greater isolation in our communities, particularly among old people. Nine million people are lonely in our country and they do not have somewhere safe to go and meet other people. Therefore, it is important to be able to build community centres, as well as new churches, mosques and places of worship.
If we think about the old villages and towns, there was no place in the country without a church in every community—a place where the community could gather and members could have their spiritual, social and so many other needs met. Those pillars in our community were the pub and the church. I appreciate that some of those pubs have been facing many challenges, but the church still stands—those buildings still stand.
We need to see those opportunities coming forward for new developments so the community’s needs are met. Those things need investment. The infrastructure levy can be used to support vital community infrastructure. That is drawn out through proposed new paragraph (m), which looks at local facilities, and they can be pooled. It is possible to have a church that is a post office. I do not know whether it could be a pub as well, but it certainly could be a café. We are seeing a lot of those facilities coming together.
Where is the heart of community if we just build? We have all been to those horrific estates where there is no community centre and where there is just housing, housing, housing or flats, flats, flats, but the community is not pulled together. I have seen that in developments in York and it is horrid. People are not centred; they do not know their neighbours, they do not know anybody around them and they are increasingly isolated. As I said, 9 million people in our country experience loneliness. If we think about that wider context of where that goes because of the type of housing—increasingly flats and apartments—being built, if we do not invest in that social infrastructure as well, we are going to end up with a massive mental health and isolation challenge in the future.
Paul Scully
It has been interesting moving around some of the areas where the infrastructure levy can be used, whether for cycles, footpaths or micro-transport. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich mentioned from a sedentary position that we are going to get the good experience of York. I did not realise that we were going to have the experience of Trieste in Italy as well. It is interesting to hear about that, although I understand that in Trieste they do not have mental health provision in hospitals either because they tend to keep to people suffering with their mental health in their homes. It is a different cultural situation, but the point was taken.
The hon. Member for York Central talked about allotments. I do not want to see the community levy contributing to a dulling of good developers who want to provide community facilities as part of their place-shaping. Allotments are comparatively low cost to design and implement, but have massive social and community value. I very much understand that point. Having been the Hospitality Minister for two years, and now the Minister for Faith, I find the hon. Lady’s proposal to combine those roles in the church/pub really interesting—we will see how that goes.
This is the problem with putting lists in Bills. The list is not supposed to be exhaustive and comprehensive—there are plenty of things that charging authorities can, should and will be looking at, such as those the hon. Lady has outlined. The Bill gives a starting point, but I do not think we need to go further at this stage, because the rest of the Bill gives the local authorities wide powers, allowing them to spend the levy on the infrastructure that their communities need, rather than it being imposed by us in the detail proposed by the amendment.
I reassure the hon. Lady that, should a local authority wish to spend the levy on items of infrastructure that are not expressly stated in the list in proposed new section 204N, as long as it is infrastructure in the common sense and natural meaning of the word, it will indeed be able to do that. The levy can be spent on any infrastructure that supports the development of an area, including funding the provision, improvement and replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure, providing that it is in accordance with the original aim of the levy as set out in proposed new section 204A.
The Bill also allows for regulations to add, remove or vary the content of the list to support infrastructure delivery through the levy if it is necessary and if any clarification is needed.
Rachael Maskell
Energy should get particular mention in a redrafting of the Bill. Other countries are further advanced; we are behind. That is a specific point, and we should see that change. Does the Minister conclude that all the other issues in the amendment would be facilitated by proposed new section 204A, as set out in that broader definition of the Bill? If that is the case, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Paul Scully
I do not see the need to put energy generation in the list because, absolutely, that and the other areas she raises are included. I am happy to give her that reassurance. As long as the local authority thinks something is needed, and it fits within the definition of infrastructure—I think we can agree that all the points she raises fit within that definition of infrastructure—the answer is yes.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Just for clarity: if the authority were to bring forward a proposal for microgeneration of energy or an energy facility in order to support a local town, conurbation or whatever, that would be included, too. I made the point about energy having a separate mention in the Bill because it is such a big issue and much broader than some other areas, but would that also be covered?
Paul Scully
Yes. If the local authority thinks it is needed, then absolutely. The discourse around housing is often just about the supply of housing, but clearly energy, and energy generation of all sorts, needs to be brought into it. We need to bring in schools, hospitals and medical facilities of all types, and indeed allotments, as she said. Yes, I can give her that assurance, and ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Rachael Maskell
I have heard what the Minister has said. I will take his words as authoritative—they will be in the Hansard record of today’s debate—and, as a result, I will withdraw my amendment. The point about energy is significant, not least if I look at the Derwenthorpe development by the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust in York, which has put energy and a community centre at the heart of that social/private development. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 165, in schedule 11, page 306, leave out from line 38 to line 2 on page 307.
This amendment would limit the circumstances under which the Secretary of State could direct a charging authority to review its charging schedule.
This amendment, much like amendments 162, 163 and 164, which we debated earlier in relation to the IL rate-setting process, is concerned with ensuring that the new levy system is genuinely local and that charging authorities are fully in control of developing its discretionary elements at a local level. It would remove proposed new section 204Y(1)(b), which provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct a charging authority to alter its charging schedule in a range of circumstances, including
“in any other circumstances that IL regulations may specify”.
That is of particular concern.
Given that the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to revise individual charging schedules at their sole discretion, with no need to justify that intervention by means of any objective evidence-based criteria, we are concerned that, as drafted, it could have significant implications. For example, it could allow a future Secretary of State to require a charging authority to amend its locally developed charging schedule as a result of lobbying by a developer, without having to provide any evidence that the levy as implemented in the area in question is impairing viability and frustrating development.
We believe that this amendment is necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot direct a charging authority to alter its charging schedule merely due to the passage of time or any other circumstances they see fit, given that the only justified rationale for an intervention from Ministers in relation to a charging schedule—namely, its impact on viability—is already covered by subsection (1). I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Paul Scully
Proposed new section 204Y(1)(b) enables the Government to require an authority to review—not necessarily alter—its levy charging schedule if a significant amount of time has passed since its last issuing, review, revision or replacement. Proposed new section 204Y(1)(c) enables the Government to require a review in any other circumstances as may be specified through regulations. It is important to have a power to direct a review to be undertaken after a significant period has elapsed since the schedule was put in place or revised. That is because there may be occasions when a schedule has been in place for many years without a proper review, and so is not up to date.
The levy will be a mandatory charge, and for many local authorities operating a levy on new developments it will be a novel means to capture land value. Monitoring and reviewing charging schedules will therefore be important, especially for authorities that are unaccustomed to charging a levy. That is why we want levy charging rates to be reviewed on a timely basis. We will issue guidance on what that might reasonably mean in terms of time and circumstances. I hope that provides reassurance, including for communities and developers, that the rates remain appropriate. We want to make sure the approach is balanced.
Historically, local planning authorities have not always reviewed and updated key documents, such as local plans, in a timely fashion, which is why it is appropriate to take this power to direct a charging authority to issue, review, revise or replace. Furthermore, it is entirely consistent for the Bill to secure timely reviews of charging schedules and to require that local authorities introduce a charging schedule in the first place. Levy charging schedules are underpinned by evidence on local economic circumstances and viability. Reviews either provide confidence that the charging schedule remains appropriate or starts a process of revision if they are considered not to be.
We also consider it important to have the power to regulate for any other circumstances in which the Government may want to direct that a review be undertaken, such as if a new local plan is issued soon after the publication of a charging schedule. Any further circumstances identified will be introduced through affirmative regulations, and so will be laid before this House and debated and approved here. With that clarification, I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate that response from the Minister. I am partly reassured, and I note the point that he made about the use of “review” as opposed to directly “revise” in terms of the power available to the Secretary of State. I also note what the Minister said about the forthcoming guidance. I remain slightly concerned about how broadly defined line 2 of page 307 is, in that it does allow the Secretary of State to call for that review on the basis of anything that might come forward in future regulation, subject only to the affirmative procedure. We all know the limitations of that.
I am not going to press the amendment to a Division, but I hope the Government will reflect on the Opposition’s concerns about the ability in the Bill, as presently drafted, for the Secretary of State to intervene in a number of ways that should be the preserve of local charging authorities. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 166, in schedule 11, page 308, leave out line 25.
This amendment would prevent IL regulations making unspecified provision about how powers under section 106 of TCPA 1990 (planning obligations) are used.
The Committee will be relieved to hear that this is the last of our amendments on the infrastructure levy. It relates to the interaction of the infrastructure levy with other existing powers. As drafted, proposed new section 204Z1(1) in schedule 11 provides for future IL regulations to make unspecified provisions about how a range of existing powers, including CIL and section 106 planning obligations, are to be used or not used.
Our specific concern relates to the application of those broad powers to the use of section 106 agreements. While we appreciate fully that there are circumstances where the use of section 106 will have to be limited—for example, to avoid double charging a development for the same infrastructure item—we feel strongly, for reasons that I went into in exhaustive detail on Tuesday in relation to that part of the Bill in the round, that section 106 agreements have a crucial role to play in ensuring we secure sufficient levels of affordable housing. We are concerned that proposed new subsection (1) could be used to unduly restrict their use.
By deleting line 25 from page 208, amendment 166 simply seeks to ensure that future IL regulations cannot make unspecified provisions about how section 106 agreements are used once the levy system is operational. I hope the Minster will seriously consider accepting the amendment. If not, I feel that we need, at a minimum, far greater clarity about the precise circumstances in which the Government expect to have to restrict section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Paul Scully
Proposed new section 204Z1 in schedule 11 enables the Secretary of State to prescribe how certain powers are to be used or not. As we have heard, proposed new subsection (1)(c) enables the Secretary of State to prescribe how section 106 applications may or may not be used alongside the levy. That power has been used previously to make provision under the community infrastructure levy regulations to ensure that section 106 obligations are necessary in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fair and reasonably related to the scale and kind of development.
We need to be able to continue to ensure, under the new system, that section 106 obligations are used in ways that are appropriate, necessary and fair. We need to be able to delineate between matters that should be funded by the levy, and contributions to infrastructure or mitigation that should be secured by the more narrowly focused section 106 agreement. That means that developers will know that they will receive consistent treatment across different local authorities.
Removing section 106 from the list of powers will mean that the Secretary of State is unable to provide clear, coherent and consistent boundaries between what the levy should be used for, and what section 106 agreements can and cannot be used for. That would remove a key provision that will provide for coherence across the levy and the planning obligations regime. It is important to remember that the levy will take most of that. It will be more complicated, niche or bespoke schemes for which section 106 will remain. That coherence is why we want to keep that power and consistency. For that reason, I hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a welcome additional clarification from the Minister, and I do not want to rehearse the previous debates that we have had. As I set out at length, we believe that the infrastructure levy should be discretionary and that, if it is not discretionary, affordable housing should not be within scope, so we remain concerned about the ability of this power to restrict how section 106 agreements are used. However, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 114
Power to designate Homes and Communities Agency as a charging authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I have a question relating to clause stand part. The Homes and Communities Agency, which operates under the trading name of Homes England, can already be designated as a local planning authority under the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. The clause amends section 14 of the Act to provide that, if a designation order is made under section 13 to designate the HCA as a local planning authority for all or part of a designated area, the designation order may also make provision for the HCA to be the IL charging authority for all or part of the designated area.
The current situation with CIL is that the Homes and Communities Agency, urban development corporations and enterprise zone authorities can also be collecting authorities for development where they grant permission, but only if the relevant charging authority agrees. It would appear that the new provision in the clause allows Homes England to be a charging authority for the area where it acts as the planning authority, without the need for agreement from the local planning authority, as is currently the case with CIL.
Given the circumstances, I am more than happy for the Minister or his successor to respond to me in writing at a later date, but I would be grateful if he could explain the rationale behind the change of approach, what engagement and consultation Homes England will be required to carry out with other relevant local bodies in the absence of an explicit agreement to exercise the relevant powers, and what processes Homes England will use to decide how IL should be spent in that area.
Paul Scully
I will write to the hon. Gentleman with further details. As he rightly says, the clause is designed purely to act as a framework for having Homes England become a charging authority as well as a local planning authority. That power has not be exercised to date, but if it were, Homes England could become a charging authority. It is important to have the power in order to allow the Homes and Communities Agency to become the charging authority as well as the local planning authority, and to specify the purpose and kinds of development. Without the clause, the levy may not be able to function effectively in areas where the Homes and Communities Agency may be designated as the local planning authority. I commend the clause to the Committee, and I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with further details, should he require them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 114 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Gareth Johnson.)
National Security Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Thursday 8th September 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate National Security Act 2023 View all National Security Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 September 2022 - (8 Sep 2022)
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Ms Ali. I bring good news to the Committee: yesterday, I met the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), who is alive and well. We asked why he did not attend the Committee, but we have not yet had an explanation from the Government. From what he told me, I understand that the reason why he was told to stay away was that he would not move part 3 of the Bill.
Related to that, however, we also raised the issue of losing a day last Tuesday because the Government insisted on adjourning the Committee. Has any thought been given to an extra day next week—if we need it—to complete the Bill’s proper scrutiny?
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Ms Ali. On both occasions that the Committee met on Tuesday, although only for a short time and without being able to make any progress on the Bill, I asked the Minister in charge, the Government Whip, for an explanation of why the former Minister had not turned up to the Committee. Had he engaged in dereliction of his duty—he said he would stay in post until the new appointment and then did not turn up—or had he been asked to stay away? My right hon. Friend put forward—we would call this hearsay in the courts—an explanation that he heard from the hon. Gentleman in question, but I had asked the Whip to tell us. I think the Committee deserves to hear why that happened. Will one of the Ministers tell us what the Government’s explanation is? It has been requested since Tuesday.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Ms Ali. The right hon. Member for North Durham made the request for additional time. Given how much is yet to be done, in particular the most contentious new clauses—contentious in the minds of some perhaps—especially relating to the public interest defence, which may take substantial time to deal with fully, will proper consideration be given to replacing at least the day lost earlier this week?
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
This is the first time that I have spoken on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government. It is an enormous privilege to be here. I realise that I enter this process—this lion’s den—at a moment when other lions have been through the Bill a few times before—there are an awful lot of Christians in this Committee and only one lion.
Before I say anything further, I pay enormous tribute to the Bill team, who have been phenomenal. The very fact that this has continued at all in such a professional way—
Tom Tugendhat
It has. That is because they have held it together and been a phenomenal asset to the Home Office. I am grateful to them.
On the various points that have been made, the hon. Member—
Tom Tugendhat
My apologies: the right hon. Gentleman. He is quite right. He asked some questions, as did the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, or the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood—
Tom Tugendhat
I will endeavour to find out what the reason is. You will understand, Ms Ali, that I was not appraised of this situation. I have spent rather a long time reading the Bill in the past 36 hours and not so much time asking about the movements of former Ministers.
On the point made by the right hon. Members for North Durham and for Dundee East about time, I will endeavour to do what I can to ensure that we have time available. Let us see how we go today. If time is needed, I will talk to the Whips team about it.
The Chair
The Minister has addressed the key points. I have nothing further to add in response to the point of order, so we will now begin our proceedings.
Clause 41
Variation of measures
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 42 to 44 stand part.
That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
As the comparable sections in the terrorism prevention and investigation measures legislation make clear, clauses 41 to 44 are technical elements that improve the regime and make it work in practice. Clause 41 mirrors TPIMs by making provision for the measures imposed to be varied while they are in force. That will allow changes to be made to the restrictions where necessary, in response to changes in the individual’s personal or family circumstances or to the assessment of the risk they pose. Those provisions will be important in ensuring that the regime is able to respond dynamically and flexibly to changing circumstances, and that the individual is able to live as normal a life as is possible without posing a threat to the British people.
The provisions will also be important to securing the effective operational management of state threats prevention and investigation measures. Critically, the underlying requirement that the measures imposed must always be necessary and proportionate remains, and that is explicitly the case for any variation that has the effect of strengthening the measures imposed.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair once again, Ms Ali. They say a week is a long time in politics: never has that been truer than this week. I am very pleased to see the Minister in his place, but—for the second time over the course of this Committee—not quite as pleased as the hon. Member for North Cornwall that he once again has a Minister in place. I welcome the Minister to his role; as others have said, he is the fourth Minister we have had over the course of this Bill. We welcome the opportunity to continue to work together, now that we can make some vital progress on this really important piece of legislation. I also look forward to working with him on this policy area beyond just the legislation that is in front of us.
Turning to the detail of this group of clauses, clause 41 makes provision for the measures imposed under a part 2 notice to be varied in a number of different circumstances, as the Minister has outlined. Subsection (2) makes it possible for the Secretary of State to vary a relocation measure in a part 2 notice if considered necessary
“for reasons connected with the efficient and effective use of resources in relation to the individual”.
We are satisfied with those measures, and recognise the necessity of the remaining provisions in the clause.
Clause 42 provides a power for the Secretary of State to revoke a part 2 notice at any time by serving a revocation notice, whether or not in response to a request by the individual. The Secretary of State may exercise that power where they consider it is no longer necessary for the part 2 notice and the measures imposed under it to remain in force. The explanatory notes say that
“although the measures may no longer be necessary at the time that the Part 2 notice is revoked (for example because the individual has been detained in prison), they may subsequently become necessary again (when the same individual is released from prison, perhaps following an unsuccessful prosecution for a criminal offence).”
As I have said before, the assumed prosecution rate for state threats in the Home Office impact assessment is just 33%, so I am concerned that we might need that level of flexibility, depending on the circumstances.
Subsection (6)(a) of the clause also provides a power for the Secretary of State to revive for a period of a year a notice that has previously expired without being extended, without the need for evidence of new state threat activity. Surely if a person continues to be a threat, the notice should not be allowed to expire; alternatively, if the notice has been allowed to expire because the person is no longer deemed a threat, reviving a notice without any new information surely could not be justified. On that basis, I would be keen to hear any further rationale for the provisions in subsection (6)(a).
When considering the revocation of part 2 notices, it is also worth considering what Jonathan Hall QC described as the “TPIM Catch-22” in his annual report on the terrorism equivalent of these part 2 measures:
“On the one hand, in order to test whether an individual would revert to terrorism-related activity in the absence of TPIM measures, there may be no alternative but to reduce or remove measures; for example, by allowing an individual to associate or move more freely.
“On the other hand, association and movement measures have been imposed precisely to counter the risk of terrorist-related activity. In the absence of evidence of risk reduction, to do so might put members of the public at risk of harm.”
It is not easy to step down from STPIMs once they have been imposed and there is a clock ticking on the restrictions imposed on a suspect, so what efforts are we making to establish best practice on this, so that clauses 41 and 42 can be deployed as effectively as possible?
Clauses 43 and 44, also in this group, make provision for circumstances in which a part 2 notice is “quashed” or directed to be revoked as a result of court proceedings, and schedule 6 rightly provides other circumstances in which an individual who is convicted of an offence under clause 50 has a right of appeal against that conviction.
Other than the points we have raised, we are satisfied that these measures strike an appropriate balance.
Stewart Hosie
I welcome the Minister to his place.
In this group, clause 41 allows for the variation of STPIMs, either on application by the individual on whom it has been served or by the Secretary of State, when certain circumstances apply. Most of the clauses in this group seem to make sense, but there is some slightly odd wording. I know the Minister described these measures as “technical” and said that they would improve provision, but will he give some clarity?
Clause 41(1)(c) provides the power to vary, which is available if necessary
“for purposes connected with preventing or restricting the individual’s involvement in foreign power threat activity.”
Why is that? The words “purposes connected with” appear to be a slightly odd formulation. Why is the requirement not simply to prevent or restrict involvement in “threat activity”?
That same question arises in relation to clause 41(2)(a), but in that paragraph what is meant by allowing a new relocation measure to be invoked when
“necessary for reasons connected with the efficient and effective use of resources in relation to the individual”?
What does that actually mean? The Minister described these provisions as “dynamic” and “efficient”. Are we saying that people may be moved for a second time simply to save money? The explanatory notes suggest that is the case, so I seek reassurance that such a provision will not be used unless genuinely necessary.
Clause 42 allows for the revocation of notices, including on application, but it does not appear to restrict the number or frequency of revocation applications. It also allows the Secretary of State to make a “revival notice” in regard to a part 2 notice that has expired or been revoked. It protects against expired notices already extended to the maximum limit, but it seems to leave open the possibility of revoking a four times extended part 2 notice and then reviving it, despite the time limit. That seems to be expressly permitted in clause 42(7)(b), although clause 42(9) appears to stop that. Will the Minister confirm that revival notices cannot be used to try to circumvent the absolute maximum of five years and that clause 42(9) will prevent that happening?
Turning briefly to schedule 6, which covers circumstances in which a person has been convicted of breaching a part 2 notice but the notice or extension is “quashed” so that the offence would not have been committed had it been quashed earlier. There are some very tight timescales in this schedule. For example:
“An appeal under this Schedule to the Court of Appeal against a conviction on indictment in England and Wales or Northern Ireland…may not be brought after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the right of appeal arises”.
The same 28 days is used in relation to
“an appeal under this Schedule to the High Court of Justiciary”—
the Scottish High Court of Appeal—
“against a conviction on indictment in Scotland”.
There is a 21-day deadline on
“an appeal under this Schedule to the Crown Court against a summary conviction in England and Wales”.
There is a 14-day time limit on
“an appeal under this Schedule to the Sheriff Appeal Court against a summary conviction in Scotland”.
Some of these timescales, particularly the 14 day one, are very tight and it may be very tricky to know precisely when the clock starts ticking, as that depends on when a different clock has run out.
We may be slightly over-cautious. However, it appears ridiculous if people are left with convictions for breaching what would have been illegal orders. Would it not be more sensible in those circumstances, to avoid people having to go to appeal courts of one sort or another in short timescale, simply to automatically quash them? Why is there a time limit on the ability to appeal in any circumstance?
Tom Tugendhat
Let me answer some of the questions that have just come up. The hon. Member for Halifax and the right hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, if I am correct—
Tom Tugendhat
Forgive me; the right hon. Member for Dundee East. They have raised some interesting points. The first is on the notice to be revived without new evidence of a lapse. The reason for that variation is to allow for prison sentencing. Should an individual find themselves being sentenced for a crime in the middle of an STPIM, that allows the STPIM to be paused for the purpose of imprisonment and revived afterwards, without having to go through the whole process again. The purpose is practical, rather than that of having a massive legal effect. Therefore, I believe it is entirely proportionate with the requirements of security.
Stewart Hosie
That seems a slightly illogical formulation. If the prison sentence is substantially longer than the maximum the STPIM could provide for, it seems preposterous that the remainder of the STPIM’s time would be added to the end of a sentence once it was fully discharged. That does not appear to be fully thought through.
Tom Tugendhat
Perhaps the hon. Member will appreciate that not everybody who spends time in prison will do so for the offence for which the STPIM might have been applied. It is perfectly possible that somebody might spend six months in prison for something completely unconnected—a driving offence, a minor theft, or whatever—and therefore a pause would be entirely in keeping with that. The STPIM is about controlling different people’s ability to move and communicate, in which circumstances prison would simply not be a relevant application because the prison sentence effectively supersedes the controls that would have been put in place. In that sense, it is merely a way of recognising that, in certain circumstances, different applications would apply.
Clause 39 requires police to keep under review criminal investigations. STPIMs are a civil measure to protect against national security threats when a criminal prosecution is not possible. They are not overlapping; they are compatible and, indeed, complementary.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 42 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 45
Appeals
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
The clause set out the rights of appeal of a person subject to an STPIM notice and the function of the court on considering such an appeal. Those rights of appeal are in addition to the automatic review of each case and ensure that the individual subject to a notice is able to appeal against all relevant decisions taken by the Secretary of State using the powers contained in the Bill—for example, to extend or revive a notice, to vary the measures or to refuse an application for measures to be varied.
In determining an appeal brought under the clause, the court must apply judicial review principles. That is a particularly intense level of scrutiny and will ensure that the Secretary of State’s decisions are subject to independent consideration. Clause 45 makes clear the powers of the court on considering an appeal, which include to quash the extension or revival of the notice or the measures within, or to give directions to the Secretary of State for the revocation of the notice or in relation to the variation of the measures specified in the notice. As I have said already, a key feature of the Bill is the extensive and multi-layered approach to judicial oversight, which will ensure that the courts can be involved at every stage of the process, and that every decision of the Secretary of State can be reviewed by the judiciary and can be overturned if the court so decides.
To recap, there is an initial permission stage before measures are imposed. There is then the automatic full review of the decision to impose measures, and there are the extensive rights of appeal contained in the clause. Taken together, those provide important safeguards.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. It is absolutely right that clause 45 sets out those rights to appeal. I have nothing further to add at this stage, but we will come back to oversight when we discuss later amendments and new clauses.
Stewart Hosie
Clause 45 includes the important power to appeal to the court against the decision to review or revive a part 2 notice; against variations, or the refusal of them; against unlimited revocation applications; and in relation to permission applications. As the Minister said, the function is to review the decision, and the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.
That sounds fine—so far, so good—but why is there no right to appeal against a clause 35 permission to impose STPIM decisions, as made clear in clause 47? Is it because it is expected that other procedures will have the same effect, for example an application to revoke, or is this an attempt to limit in statute the ability of those subject to STPIMs having access to court to appeal in those circumstances?
Mr Jones
I warmly welcome the Minister to his position. He and I go back a long way: when I was a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, he was a bright, fresh young officer, and I think we both have fond memories of our time working together. One of the dangers he faces is being appointed to a position that he knows a lot about. That is always a downer for any Minister and strikes fear into the civil service. I wish him well, and he will do a good job.
Throughout the entire Bill, there should be an ability for the individual to have recourse to appeal. That is not because I am somehow soft on terrorism or on the individuals we are dealing with. It is because we must have a system whereby, when the state takes hard measures to limit someone’s freedom, they need the counterbalance of the ability to appeal. That is why I welcome the measures. My problem with the Bill is that, although this measure is present in this part of the Bill, there are no safeguards in other parts of the Bill. Those types of appeal mechanisms balance state power and the individual.
I have two specific points on the process, which I support. How will the appeals be done in the court? Some of the information that the Secretary of State will rely on will be highly classified, so how will the process work? It will mean the disclosure of some information that we would not want disclosed in open court. I shall not rehearse the arguments on part 3, but it is clear that, if part 3 is retained, the individual will not have recourse to legal aid for an appeal. I am opposed to that. That is not because I am on the side of individuals who wish us harm, but we must ensure that we have a system that is robust in ensuring that justice is done, and people must not be arbitrarily detained or subject to those restrictions if they clearly have legitimate arguments against what the state is trying to apply.
Tom Tugendhat
Before I come to the right hon. Member for Dundee East’s words, I will just address the very generous tribute from the right hon. Member for North Durham. I remember that I used to call him sir; he never called me sir, and he still will not. I do not feel special in that; I do not think he has ever called anyone sir in his life. It was very kind of him.
On the question raised by the right hon. Member for Dundee East, clause 38 means that there has to be a review wherever a STPIM notice is imposed, which is in clause 35. The individual can attend the automatic review. I will come on to that element, because as the right hon. Member for North Durham rightly says, there is likely to be material that is extremely sensitive. That is why the procedure relates to what is already established with special advocates. The right hon. Member knows much more about Special Immigration Appeals Commission hearings, and the various ways in which advocates can have access to information that is relevant to a court but is not then shared with somebody for whom that would not be conducive. That is the way that the proceedings will work, and I think that provides the right balance between disclosure, justice and protection.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Jurisdiction in relation to decisions under this part
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
Members will be pleased that this is very brief. Clause 46 makes an important but largely technical provision. The purpose is to provide absolute clarity that the High Court is the appropriate forum for judicial proceedings arising from decisions relation to STPIMs, or in Scotland, the Outer House of the Court of Session. That is important given that such proceedings may rely on closed material, which we will come on to next.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Proceedings relating to measures
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
Clause 47, and schedule 7, to which the clause gives effect, make further provision for court proceedings in relation to decisions taken under the Bill. I will spend slightly longer on those measures, given the important issue raised by some of the key aspects of those provisions.
Subsection (1) makes clear that an appeal against a court decision in STPIM proceedings may only be brought on a point of law. That limitation is appropriate. The court of first instance has the expertise in fact finding for national security determinations. It has developed expertise and a body of knowledge in an experienced judiciary who hear national security cases. That means it is right that the court of first instance, which has significant expertise, has the final determination on points of fact.
In such cases, it is therefore right to limit the right of appeal to a point of law, as higher courts will not have available the national security information or expertise to make a fair determination on the facts. The approach is reflected from the provisions in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
Schedule 7 makes further provision relating to court proceedings under the Bill, including, in particular, powers to make rules of court about various matters. Critically for the operation of the scheme, the rules will make provision that court proceedings in relation to STPIMs will operate with both open and closed elements given the sensitivity of the evidence that will be a key component of why an individual cannot be prosecuted and why the use of a STPIM is necessary. It would fundamentally undermine the scheme if closed proceedings, where sensitive intelligence and national security arguments can be made, were not available. The individual, and his or her chosen legal representatives, can be present at the open hearings, and see all the material used in those hearings, but they cannot be present at the closed part of the proceedings or see the closed material.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the Minister for that introduction to clause 47 and schedule 7. I am particularly interested in what he had to say on special advocates and I will perhaps come on to that.
Schedule 7 introduces provisions relating to prevention and investigation measures and proceedings, as we have already heard. As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, paragraph 2 will take into account closed elements of proceedings where sensitive material is not disclosed as it would be contrary to the interests of the UK’s national security to do so, with paragraph 3 setting out the rules for the court on disclosure. In previous exchanges, we have examined the balance that needs to be struck on both these issues, so we expect the commitments to both transparency and national security to be weighed delicately in each instance.
We certainly welcome the guarantee around article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which is set out in paragraph 5. Paragraph 10 provides for the appointment of a special advocate in relation to any closed proceedings. A special advocate attends all parts of the proceedings—both open and closed—and plays a key role in scrutinising material while acting on behalf of the individual subject to the proceedings. The explanatory notes say that part of the function of the special advocate is to ensure that the closed material is subject to independent scrutiny and adversarial challenge, including making submissions in closed session on whether the closed material should be disclosed to the individual.
I think that the Minister confirmed that the special advocate would be a barrister, but I could not find any detail within the Bill or the explanatory notes about how a special advocate would be appointed and what their experience and background would be expected to be in such circumstances, when they would be providing such a specialist function. I would be grateful if there was a commitment to ensuring that those things are clear in the Bill and the explanatory notes that accompany it.
Stewart Hosie
Schedule 7 empowers the court to make rules in relation to reviewing proceedings and onward appearance, and the rules of court must secure not only a proper review of decisions, but
“that disclosures of information are not made where they would be contrary to the public interest.”
We can have determinations without a hearing, without full reasons being given for a decision—the Minister described that—and, when sensitive information is to be laid, hearings without the accused. There is a duty of disclosure on the Secretary of State, but he or she can apply not to disclose certain information on the grounds that disclosure would be
“contrary to the public interest.”
That rule means that the Secretary of State might be able to ignore other requirements to disclose information. That is Kafkaesque.
The Minister, rightly, prayed in aid national security; he was absolutely right to do that. We can all understand that there could be circumstances where such rules would be necessary, but does the legislation describe those circumstances appropriately? The watchwords appear to be “public interest”, but is that not far too wide or far too vague? Given he prayed in aid national security, why do we not only allow the avoidance of disclosure on genuine national security crimes?
Mr Jones
I think the Minister has explained that. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Dundee East, but as I said earlier on, I think the rules are a sensible safeguard in terms of what we need. Frankly, with no access to legal aid they are for the birds, because no one will be able to use them. We will come on to that debate later.
I want to ask the Minister about the issue of juveniles, which is an increasing problem for our security services. For example, the “Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism” report that we just produced in the Intelligence and Security Committee found that, increasingly, those individuals are young people—some as young as 15. If we are going to apply the rules in some possible circumstances to those individuals, what are the protections for them? If the Minister does not know the answer, I am quite happy for him to write to explain the situation. We are perhaps fixated on thinking that this is about Islamic terrorists and grown-ups, but certainly according to the ISC report, very sadly, in many cases those who are now coming before the courts are minors.
Tom Tugendhat
Let me quickly answer the question on who is the appropriate advocate. That is somebody appointed by the Attorney General under schedule 7(10)(1). The person has to be an appropriate law officer, so a barrister or a solicitor. That is how it is determined.
On the question of genuine national security, I understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Dundee East. He will understand that this is a matter of concern for many of us who are devoted, as he knows I am, to the application of the rule of law and the access to justice that this country and many countries in Europe have secured over the past century. That is vital to the provision and protection of liberty in our country. I appreciate his point and the right to a fair trial is essential.
However, it is simply the reality of life in our world that sometimes we need to frame that justice within certain provisions to allow it to be real, and not to be silenced by the inability to bring together evidence that would otherwise protect British people. That means that we have to find ways of balancing it. That is why these court proceedings, which are less than ideal and not the ones that we would like to see, are sadly necessary because of the security restrictions that apply.
On the point made by the right hon. Member for North Durham, he knows that I spent some time in the past few decades hunting people who sought to do our country harm, and he is absolutely right. Sadly, it was not always the people who we see on the various TV shows. Very often, it was people who came at it from a very different angle. I therefore appreciate his point; I will look into it and come back to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 48
Reports on exercise of powers under this part
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 49 stand part.
New clause 2—Reviews of Parts 1, 3 and 4
“(1) The operation of Parts 1, 3 and 4 of this Act must be reviewed by a person, or people, appointed by the Secretary of State.
(2) The operation of Part 3 must be reviewed by the person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006.
(3) The operation of Parts 1 and 4 must be reviewed by either—
(a) the person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006, or
(b) a different person appointed by the Secretary of State.
(4) Reviews under this section must be carried out in respect of—
(a) the 12-month period beginning with the day on which any section in this Part comes into force, and
(b) each subsequent 12-month period.
(5) Each review under subsection (1) must be completed as soon as reasonably practicable after the period to which it relates.
(6) The person or people mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) must send to the Secretary of State a report on the outcome of each review carried out under subsection (1) as soon as reasonably practicable after completion of the review.
(7) On receiving a report under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament.
(8) Section 36(6) of the Terrorism Act 2006 shall be read such that the ‘expenses’ and ‘allowances’ mentioned therein may include the discharge by the person or people of their functions under this section.”
Tom Tugendhat
Clause 48 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament every quarter on the exercise of her powers under this part of the Bill. The Committee will recognise the parallel to similar measures in the TPIM Act 2011. Although details of the operation of the system and of particular cases will necessarily be sensitive and cannot be disclosed publicly, the clause acts as an additional safeguard by welcoming public scrutiny of the use of the regime and powers, and offers reassurance that crucial information about the operation of the regime will be public and kept up to date. Crucially, that information will include the extent of the Secretary of State’s use of her powers and the number of cases in which measures are imposed. It will also include details of court judgments handed down in the relevant period that relate to the use of those powers.
Clause 49 requires the Secretary of State to appoint an independent reviewer to review the operation of part 2 annually. First, the reviewer is required to undertake a review of the operation of the STPIM regime as soon as is reasonably practical at the end of each year, and a report on the outcome of the review must be sent to the Secretary of State as soon as is reasonably practical after the review has been completed. Then, the Secretary of State is obliged to lay the report before Parliament. That replicates the approach in TPIMs, for which the annual reports have been an effective way of examining the Government’s use of their powers.
The independence of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, combined with their unrestricted access to Government papers and intelligence, has led to real insight and informed reports that have aided the functioning and development of the TPIM regime. Using the same approach for STPIMs will ensure similarly robust scrutiny. Omitting the clause would undermine the level of oversight and transparency of the regime. I hope the Committee agrees that the provision is important for the effective operation of STPIMs.
New clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Halifax, proposes commitments to review annually the operations of parts 1, 3 and 4 of the Bill. I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the new clause and I understand the intention behind it. Appropriate oversight of national security functions—particularly the use of intrusive powers—is important. A range of oversight mechanisms are in operation and govern both the UK’s intelligence agencies and the police, which are the primary bodies that will utilise the new powers in the Bill.
As I have just mentioned in addressing clause 49, the Government have made a commitment to an independent reviewer of part 2 of the Bill. Although there may well be merit in extending oversight of the legislation beyond part 2, careful consideration must be given to how that is done. In some cases, it could create an undesired overlap of duplication of responsibility. The Committee discussed that earlier—a little bit before my time—in the context of the hon. Lady’s proposal for an independent body to monitor disinformation. There are further examples of potential duplication, such as the powers in clause 22, which are already the responsibility of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
The new clause also proposes that part 3 of the Bill be reviewed by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. As the Committee knows, part 3 contains measures to freeze civil damages awarded to claimants who are seen as representing a real risk of using their award to fund acts of terror, and measures to restrict access to civil legal aid for convicted terrorists. As a result, it is already in the remit of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to review those measures. An explicit commitment to oversight of part 3 of the Bill is therefore unnecessary and would duplicate the existing discretion of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to review and report on terrorism-related legislation.
With those points in mind, the Government cannot accept new clause 2 at this stage. Although I fully appreciate the purpose behind the new clause, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw it for now. The Government take oversight of the Bill seriously, and we will consider the best way to approach it. I will be in touch with her about that.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful for the way the Minister has approached the new clause. I accept entirely the volume of work he has had to do in the past 24 to 36 hours.
We feel quite strongly about some of the proposals we are advocating for in new clause 2. There is an acceptance of the real value of the work undertaken by the independent reviewers right across the agencies that work with this type of legislation. We think we are largely doing the Government a favour in putting these proposals forward.
Stewart Hosie
Clause 48 requires quarterly reports by the Secretary of State on the exercise of powers to impose, extend, vary, revoke or revive part 2 notices. Clause 49 requires an independent reviewer of this part—that is, the STPIMs. Annual reports are to be prepared and laid, and that is all good and well. The only issue we have is the scope of the clause 48 report, in that its requirement is
“the exercise of the powers”,
while the scope of the clause 49 review is about
“the operation of this Part”.
It is important that the review includes information about the workings of what I described as potentially Kafkaesque rules for reviews and appeals in schedule 7. I will be very brief, but new clause 2, in the name of the hon. Member for Halifax, which calls for a broader review requirement to cover parts 1, 3 and 4 of the Bill, does seem rather sensible.
Mr Jones
The amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax is, as I said earlier, part of a broader piece about ensuring that we get the balance right between giving our security services, agencies and people the powers that I personally support, and providing proper scrutiny for the individual and for the operation of the Bill. That is the thing that has been missing from the Bill. Knowing Sir Brian Leveson, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, I know that system works well in terms of warrantry and so on. If we are going to give powers to our agencies to do their job rightly, we have to ensure that they are robust and reviewed as things change.
I know the Minister is only a day or a bit into his job, so he might not be able to accept an amendment today, but I think this aspect needs to be looked at throughout the Bill. It was certainly raised with his predecessor, though I cannot remember if it was his immediate predecessor or the one before that.
My other point is to do with this issue of laying before Parliament. I support that, but the report will be very anodyne in terms of what it can provide in public, so I might look to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I am not looking for work for that Committee, but it has the ability to access material that cannot, for obvious reasons, be put in the public domain. The Minister will soon learn about the battles going on at the moment with parts of the Cabinet Office, Home Office and various other agencies about our role and access to material. We already get, for example, the independent commissioner’s report, but we have an ongoing row about our access to the annex, which we had in the past but for some reason are now not allowed to have. Given the role of Parliament and for its reassurance, will the Minister consider the ISC having access to the information that cannot be put in the public domain? That would be helpful. I accept that some people think the ISC just agrees with everything the agencies do, but it is another review body that can give assurance to the public and Parliament that the powers are proportionate.
We know that once we implement the Bill, we will learn and powers will change. I am not against Brian Leveson, the independent tribunals and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner—they do a fantastic job. They have helpfully pointed to some of the lessons that need to be learned, for example, from the terrorist attacks in London and Manchester. The ability of parliamentarians at least to ask the questions and have access to the information that cannot be put in the public domain would be an added layer of scrutiny, allowing the public to know at least that we have a full spectrum to ensure that such things are done proportionately and are working effectively.
Tom Tugendhat
I thank hon. Members for the tone of this discussion. I appreciate that scrutiny is important. This is about protecting not just the rights of individuals, but the agencies that are carrying out such important work on our behalf. Their heroism and courage on operations need to be protected, so that the agencies are not later found in legal difficulty in areas where they have acted not only with integrity but with enormous courage. I therefore appreciate the tone.
Briefly, I will touch on the question of scrutiny and laying before the House. I will make an absolute commitment to bring forward reports as soon as possible. I appreciate that there have been a few issues of late, which may have delayed things. I assure the hon. Member for Halifax that I will do my best to ensure that those timelines are reduced and are as sharp as possible. I absolutely appreciate her point. The issue of being laid before both Houses is made absolutely clear in the publication.
To touch on the question of who the commissioner might be, that has not been resolved as yet. I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point and there is merit on both sides of the argument, but either way, there is huge merit in ensuring that whoever is doing TPIMs has a very close connection with whomever is doing STPIMs. Whether that is a newly appointed individual or the extension of a role, I am happy to ensure that they work closely together.
Holly Lynch
We have been probing that during the passage of the Bill. Because that role is so crucial to the oversight that needs to follow the rest of the provisions in the legislation, can the Minister, as an absolute minimum, confirm that that person will be in post and that that issue will have been resolved by the time the Bill is enacted, so that that is not an ongoing question that starts to run into the legislation being enacted?
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Member will be aware that I have been in post for only a few hours, so I will be cautious about making commitments that I cannot keep, but I can assure her that I will do my absolute damnedest to make sure that they are in post, because I can see exactly the point that she makes and I appreciate it. As I say, this is about protecting the rights not just of those who are subject to the provisions but of those carrying out the protection of our state and our nation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50
Offence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
The clause provides for a criminal offence of breaching a measure specified in a part 2 notice without reasonable excuse. This echoes, as do many of the provisions, a similar provision in the TPIM regime, and includes cases in which a person has permission from the Secretary of State to contravene a measure and does not adhere to the terms or conditions of that permission. For the sake of enforceability, it is vital that a part 2 notice is reinforced with effective penalties if the subject does not comply. Hence the maximum penalty on conviction is a custodial sentence not exceeding five years, unless the travel measure is breached, in which case the maximum sentence is 10 years.
Holly Lynch
The clause provides for an offence of contravening without reasonable excuse any measure specified in a part 2 notice. That, again, mirrors section 23 of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. According to the Government’s most recent transparency report, in December 2020 the total number of individuals who had been served a notice since TPIMs were introduced in 2011 was 24, so compliance is relatively high. But so are the stakes when someone breaches the terms of such measures.
According to the “Statistics on the operation of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 and subsequent legislation” quarterly report from the Home Office, the number of people who have been prosecuted and convicted under section 23 of the TPIM Act, meaning that they contravened an order, is 10. Like TPIMs, the primary function of STPIMs is to be able to control and monitor those who represent a serious threat to our national security but cannot yet be prosecuted. We have been assured that the primary function of an STPIM is to be able to manage a person while an investigation into a part 1 offence is established, rather than simply creating a situation where a prosecutable breach is highly likely.
We note the particular focus on travel in clause 50, and that under subsection (2) an individual who travels without permission loses any reasonable excuse defence. Given that we anticipate that there might be a higher number of foreign nationals and dual nationals in this cohort due to the state threat nature of the offences, it is possible that we might have higher numbers of requests to attend overseas births and deaths of family members and loved ones among the cohort. However, the risk of permitting that travel, which might mean a return to a very hostile state that we fear is sponsoring the individual’s activity, presents a massive challenge. To ensure there are robust decision-making processes around those considerations and to have good reporting and a review of those elements of the clause would be welcome additions.
Stewart Hosie
As the Minister said, the clause creates a criminal offence of contravening without a reasonable excuse a measure in a part 2 notice, but there is no defence of reasonable excuse if the subject leaves the UK when they are restricted from doing so. In normal circumstances, a breach of a part 2 notice would leave the individual subject to five years’ imprisonment on indictment, or 12 months’ imprisonment on a summary conviction in Scotland, but that becomes nine years’ imprisonment on indictment for a breach of a travel measure.
I wish simply to get to the bottom of why some of the breaches of a part 2 notice appear to be disproportionately harsh. The Minister said that much of this provision mirrors the provisions of TPIMs; does this bit—the doubling of the tariff for a breach of a travel measure—mirror the TPIMs provisions? If it does, how often was such a penalty imposed for such a breach under the existing provisions?
Tom Tugendhat
It is quite clear that any order given must have consequences if it is disobeyed—I do not think anyone in this room would disagree with that—and it is important that the penalties for disobedience against a lawfully given order must be proportionate. The penalties are proportionate, and it is normal to have an increased penalty for an aggravated offence, whatever that may be. In the circumstances, travelling abroad would be considered an aggravation and therefore have a greater penalty attached. That is entirely appropriate, so it is entirely reasonable to have that increased sentence.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
Powers of entry etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
The clause gives effect to schedule 8, which provides the police with powers of search, entry, seizure and retention in a number of scenarios relating to STPIMs. For the sake of ease, I will cover the clause and the schedule together.
Before I go into the detail of the clause, I remind the Committee that STPIMs will be a tool of last resort. The Government will use every other tool at our disposal before resorting to such significant measures. Again, I remind the Committee that these measures mirror those in the TPIMs regime.
In order to effectively enforce the regime and check an individual is complying with the measures under their STPIM, the police will have the powers they need to enter premises, conduct necessary searches and seize and retain items as necessary. They will also be able to arrest the individual for a “breach of” offence if they fail to grant police access.
Schedule 8 provides powers to the police to enter and search premises without a warrant to locate an individual for the purpose of serving an STPIM notice or another specified notice on them; to search an individual or premises when serving an STPIM notice for the purpose of discovering anything that might breach any measures specified in the STPIM notice; to search premises on suspicion that an individual subject to an STPIM notice has absconded; and to search an individual subject to an STPIM notice for public safety purposes. It provides a power to police with a warrant to search an individual or premises to determine whether an individual is complying with the measures specified in the STPIM notice. There are also powers for a constable to seize and retain items found in the course of such searches.
I remind the Committee that the STPIM itself is kept under review and requires a court’s permission to impose the measure. That means that a court will have already agreed with the assessment of the Secretary of State that the individual meets the meet five conditions in clause 33, which the Committee has already agreed to. That means it is proportionate in terms of a national security determination for the police to be able to undertake the aforementioned activities without a warrant. The powers will be essential to managing and enforcing the measures imposed under STPIMs and, importantly, they provide the right balance between effective powers and safeguards for the rights of the individual.
Holly Lynch
I have a couple of queries on schedule 8, which provides powers of entry, search, seizure and retention in a number of scenarios relating to part 2 notices.
I have queried the use of the word “constable” in legislation before, but it seems to be standard. Paragraph 9(9) states:
“The warrant may be executed by any constable.”
Previous schedules specify certain ranks and specialisms, such as counter-terrorism officers, to undertake such duties. Are we satisfied that further stipulations on who may execute a warrant are not required?
Sub-paragraph (10) states that a warrant issued by a court to search the individual, the individual’s place of residence, or other premises specified by the warrant, expires after 28 days. That period feels a bit odd to me. We want officers to have the flexibility they need, but I cannot imagine a scenario in which they have grounds to apply for a warrant but then take more than 20 days after it is issued to execute it. I am grateful to counter-terrorism police for sharing a bit more about their operations and how these warrants are used, which has provided some reassurance on this front, but will the Minister confirm that a warrant cannot be executed more than once in the 28-day period?
Stewart Hosie
Clause 51 applies schedule 8, which makes provision about various powers of entry, search, seizure and retention—to enter and search premises for the purpose of personally serving, to search for items that breach the notice, and to search when there is a suspicion of absconding. A warrant is required to search people or premises for the purposes of determining whether an individual is complying with the measures specified in the notice, and the warrant is to be granted only if necessary.
However, some of the powers in paragraph 10 appear to be rather broad, allowing a person to be searched without a warrant to see whether they might be
“in possession of anything that could be used to threaten or harm any person”.
I am not quite sure what that means. Unlike in the case of other warrantless powers, there is no requirement even for suspicion that someone is likely to threaten or cause harm. What is the justification or the reason for that?
Paragraphs 11 and 12 contain very strong powers to retain certain items which are seized, with no time limit other than
“as long as is necessary in all the circumstances.”
There follows a non-exhaustive example of what could represent necessity, but necessary for what? Is there provision for a person to challenge the ongoing retention of property seized by police under these powers? Is there a model for this drafting that has been used elsewhere? If there is, and if a piece warrantless search and retention legislation exists, how frequently is such a measure used?
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Member for Halifax asked about the use of the term “constable”. It is standard, and she will realise that mostly it will be counter-terrorist police who lead on STPIMs, and who the most appropriate person is will be reviewed by the operational commander. The use of the term “constable” and the equivalent ranks in other forces and relevant services is standard for these purposes.
The provision on when a warrant may be executed is operationally beneficial to those who may have reason to delay or have to wait for a window to open when action can be taken. I will not go into the potential operational requirements on any element, but clearly they will vary: in some circumstances, it will be appropriate to act immediately; in others, it may be necessary to wait.
The provision on retention for
“as long as is necessary”
is also standard, including in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The Bill also contains provisions allowing people to apply to have property returned.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 52
Fingerprints and samples
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
The clause will give effect to schedule 9, which makes provision for the taking and retention of biometric material from individuals subject to a part 2 notice. I will cover the clause with the schedule.
The biometric data retention provisions relating to state threats prevention and investigation measures are in line with those existing elsewhere in the statute book, including in TPIMs, which have been well established for more than 10 years. The schedule makes separate provisions for taking the fingerprints and samples of an individual subject to a specified prevention and investigation measure in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to that of Scotland. That ensures that provisions are in line with different police procedures and legislation.
constable may take biometric data, which could include physical data, from an individual subject to a part 2 notice. The individual will be informed of the reason for the fingerprints or sample being taken. Police can require an individual to attend a police station for the purpose of providing biometric data, and that material may be checked against other such material held under a variety of other powers. The schedule requires the destruction of relevant material, including fingerprints, DNA profiles or relevant physical data, unless there is a power to retain, which I shall come to.
The purpose of the provisions is to ensure the right balance between the protection of the public and individual civil liberties. Under paragraph (11), any samples taken from the individual must be destroyed as soon as a DNA profile has been derived from that sample or, if sooner, within six months of taking the sample. Paragraphs (8) and (9) contain powers to retain biometric data. Where there is no relevant previous conviction, fingerprints, DNA profiles and physical data may be retained for six months after the end of the relevant part 2 notice being in force.
Under paragraph (9), a national security determination can be made by a chief officer of police, enabling the police to retain for up to five years data relating to an individual who may pose an enduring national security threat. All national security determinations that can be reviewed must be reviewed by the biometrics commissioner, who has continued oversight of the retention and use of such data.
We recognise the importance of safeguarding individuals’ right to privacy, so paragraph (12) sets out the limitation of uses for any retained material taken from a person subject to a part 2 notice, which are in the interests of national security, for the purposes of investigation foreign power threat activity, for the purposes of a terrorism investigation, for the detection and prevention of crime, or in the interests of identification only.
Holly Lynch
I listened intently to the Minister. Schedule 9 makes provision for the taking and retention of fingerprints and non-intimate samples from individuals subject to a part 2 notice. Schedule 9, like schedule 3, is subject to several Government amendments. As the explanatory notes explain, fingerprints and non-intimate samples have the same meaning as that given in section 65 of PACE 1984. I would be grateful to the Minister for some clarity on that, which he may need to provide in writing. There is a lot going on in relation to biometrics in different parts of the Bill.
Paragraphs (6) to (11) make provision relating to the destruction and retention of material taken from individuals subject to a part 2 notice. The explanatory notes say that where an individual has no relevant previous convictions, fingerprints and DNA profiles may be kept for only six months after the part 2 notice ceases to be in force. Paragraph (11) goes on to state that, as provided in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, material taken under PACE, for example, or that is subject to the Terrorism Act 2000 or the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, need not be destroyed if a chief office of police determines that it is necessary to retain that material for purposes of national security. Given that we are dealing almost exclusively with matters of national security in schedule 9, can we assume that the majority of biometric evidence taken from individuals subject to part 2 notices may be held indefinitely under this provision?
I am reliably informed that the biometric retention provisions in the Bill are designed to bring the powers into line with similar provisions in terrorism legislation. Schedule 9(8) deals with the retention of biometrics collected in the course of the service of a part 2 notice under the STPIM provisions. That provides us with a retention of six months prior to a national security determination being made, and is therefore in line with the provision under schedule 6 of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.
A separate provision for the retention of biometrics can be found in paragraph 22 of schedule 3. It provides for a retention period of three years for those detained under schedule 4 provisions, in line with biometrics collected under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and section 41 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which qualify terrorism offences.
Beyond the initial retention period, both provisions are capable of retention by way of a national security determination process. I have lost track—I do not know whether other Members have—of whether we are keeping biometrics for an initial six months, as schedule 9 seems to outline, or for three years, which is the case elsewhere in the Bill. I suspect the Minister is unable offer absolute clarity right now—although I have no doubt that the civil servants think it is absolutely crystal clear—but I would be grateful if he could outline, perhaps in writing, the rationale for the different provisions.
Government amendment 32 specifies that the chief constables of the Ministry of Defence police and the British Transport police, and the director general of the National Crime Agency, are added to paragraph 9(4) of schedule 9. The responsibilities of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary are different from those of other forces, but is the Minister certain that it does not need to be added to the list?
Stewart Hosie
I am aware that similar provisions were debated in relation to schedule 3, and concerns were raised then that the provisions may end up allowing the indefinite retention of the material of people who have accepted cautions—indeed, even youth cautions—meaning that they were never charged, never mind convicted. The Minister has not provided much of a justification for that, other than that he wants the legislation to mirror the provision in other Acts. He used the same argument in his introductory remarks.
That is not enough. Provisions on the ability to retain material indefinitely on whatever grounds must be justified in their own terms in this legislation. I know that the Minister is new to the job, so if he cannot do that now, he can write with that explanation, as the hon. Member for Halifax said. Notwithstanding the fact that we all want the maximum powers necessary to tackle the state threat and the terrorist threat, if his explanation is not compelling or convincing, the provisions will need to be revisited at a later stage.
Tom Tugendhat
I do appreciate that elements are being raised about which I will write to various Committee members, and I will follow up on areas that I have not covered in detail.
Although the operational use of biometrics remains the same across provisions, we are taking a different approach to the powers provided under STPIMs and the powers in schedule 3. That ensures the right balance and proportionality in tackling foreign state threat activity while protecting individuals’ right to privacy. Although there is the option to make a national security determination under both regimes, under our police powers the initial retention period is longer than for STPIMs to reflect the seriousness of an arrest made for suspected involvement in foreign power threat activity.
Following arrest for involvement in foreign power threat activity, an individual’s biometric data may be retained for three years, with the option of extending that, irrespective of whether there is no further action, or whether they are charged or acquitted. Certain national security offences under this Bill will be added to the list of qualifying offences in PACE to reflect the seriousness of the offence that justifies longer retention periods.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9
Fingerprints and samples
Amendments made: 25, in schedule 9, page 133, line 1, leave out paragraph (f).
This amendment removes paragraph (f) from a list of provisions under which fingerprints, data and other samples may be taken. Paragraph (f) is not needed because its contents are already covered by paragraph (g).
Amendment 26, in schedule 9, page 133, line 9, at end insert—
“(ia) any of the fingerprints, data or samples obtained under paragraph 1 or 4 of Schedule 6 to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, or information derived from such a sample;”.
This amendment inserts a reference to the provisions of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 under which fingerprints, data or samples may be taken, so that fingerprints, data or samples obtained under paragraph 1 or 4 of Schedule 9 may be checked against fingerprints, data or samples taken under that Act.
Amendment 27, in schedule 9, page 133, line 13, leave out paragraph (k).
This amendment removes paragraph (k) from a list of provisions under which fingerprints, data and other samples may be taken. Paragraph (k) is not needed because its contents are already covered by paragraph (g).
Amendment 28, in schedule 9, page 133, line 30, after “paragraph 8” insert “, 8A”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 31.
Amendment 29, in schedule 9, page 134, line 4, at beginning insert—
“(Z1) This paragraph applies to paragraph 6 material taken from, or provided by, an individual who has no previous convictions or (in the case of England and Wales or Northern Ireland) only one exempt conviction.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 31.
Amendment 30, in schedule 9, page 134, line 4, leave out “Paragraph 6” and insert “The”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.
Amendment 31, in schedule 9, page 134, line 26, at end insert—
“8A (1) This paragraph applies to paragraph 6 material taken from, or provided by, an individual—
(a) who has been convicted of a recordable offence (other than a single exempt conviction) or of an offence in Scotland which is punishable by imprisonment, or
(b) who is so convicted before the end of the period within which the material may be retained by virtue of paragraph 8.
(2) The material may be retained indefinitely.
8B (1) For the purposes of paragraphs 8 and 8A an individual is to be treated as having been convicted of an offence if—
(a) in relation to a recordable offence in England and Wales or Northern Ireland—
(i) the individual has been given a caution or youth caution in respect of the offence which, at the time of the caution, the individual has admitted,
(ii) the individual has been found not guilty of the offence by reason of insanity, or
(iii) the individual has been found to be under a disability and to have done the act charged in respect of the offence,
(b) the individual, in relation to an offence in Scotland punishable by imprisonment, has accepted or has been deemed to accept—
(i) a conditional offer under section 302 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995,
(ii) a compensation offer under section 302A of that Act,
(iii) a combined offer under section 302B of that Act, or
(iv) a work offer under section 303ZA of that Act,
(c) the individual, in relation to an offence in Scotland punishable by imprisonment, has been acquitted on account of the individual’s insanity at the time of the offence or (as the case may be) by virtue of section 51A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995,
(d) a finding in respect of the individual has been made under section 55(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 in relation to an offence in Scotland punishable by imprisonment,
(e) the individual, having been given a fixed penalty notice under section 129(1) of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 in connection with an offence in Scotland punishable by imprisonment, has paid—
(i) the fixed penalty, or
(ii) (as the case may be) the sum which the individual is liable to pay by virtue of section 131(5) of that Act, or
(f) the individual, in relation to an offence in Scotland punishable by imprisonment, has been discharged absolutely by order under section 246(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
(2) Paragraphs 8, 8A and this paragraph, so far as they relate to individuals convicted of an offence, have effect despite anything in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 or the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1908 (N.I. 27)).
(3) But a person is not to be treated as having been convicted of an offence if that conviction is a disregarded conviction or caution by virtue of section 92 or 101A of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
(4) For the purposes of paragraphs 8 and 8A—
(a) an individual has no previous convictions if the individual has not previously been convicted—
(i) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland of a recordable offence, or
(ii) in Scotland of an offence which is punishable by imprisonment, and
(b) if the individual has previously been convicted of a recordable offence in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the conviction is exempt if it is in respect of a recordable offence, other than a qualifying offence, committed when the individual was aged under 18.
(5) In sub-paragraph (4) ‘qualifying offence’—
(a) in relation to a conviction in respect of a recordable offence committed in England and Wales, has the meaning given by section 65A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and
(b) in relation to a conviction in respect of a recordable offence committed in Northern Ireland, has the meaning given by Article 53A of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12)).
(6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)—
(a) a person is to be treated as having previously been convicted in England and Wales of a recordable offence if—
(i) the person has previously been convicted of an offence under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and
(ii) the act constituting the offence would constitute a recordable offence under the law of England and Wales if done there (whether or not it constituted such an offence when the person was convicted);
(b) a person is to be treated as having previously been convicted in Northern Ireland of a recordable offence if—
(i) the person has previously been convicted of an offence under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and
(ii) the act constituting the offence would constitute a recordable offence under the law of Northern Ireland if done there (whether or not it constituted such an offence when the person was convicted);
(c) a person is to be treated as having previously been convicted in Scotland of an offence which is punishable by imprisonment if—
(i) the person has previously been convicted of an offence under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and
(ii) the act constituting the offence would constitute an offence punishable by imprisonment under the law of Scotland if done there (whether or not it constituted such an offence when the person was convicted);
(d) the reference in sub-paragraph (4)(b) to a qualifying offence includes a reference to an offence under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom where the act constituting the offence would constitute a qualifying offence under the law of England and Wales if done there or (as the case may be) under the law of Northern Ireland if done there (whether or not it constituted such an offence when the person was convicted).
(7) For the purposes of paragraph 8, 8A or this paragraph—
(a) ‘offence’, in relation to any country or territory outside the United Kingdom, includes an act punishable under the law of that country or territory, however it is described;
(b) a person has in particular been convicted of an offence under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom if—
(i) a court exercising jurisdiction under the law of that country or territory has made in respect of such an offence a finding equivalent to a finding that the person is not guilty by reason of insanity, or
(ii) such a court has made in respect of such an offence a finding equivalent to a finding that the person is under a disability and did the act charged against the person in respect of the offence.
(8) If an individual is convicted of more than one offence arising out of a single course of action, those convictions are to be treated as a single conviction for the purposes of calculating under paragraph 8 or 8A whether the individual has been convicted of one offence.”
This amendment and Amendment 36 make provision for the indefinite retention of fingerprints, data and other samples taken from a person who is or previously has been convicted of a specified offence.
Amendment 32, in schedule 9, page 134, line 40, at end insert—
“(d) the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police,
(e) the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force, or
(f) the Director General of the National Crime Agency.”
This amendment enables the Chief Constables of the Ministry of Defence Police and the British Transport Police Force and the Director General of the National Crime Agency to make a national security determination in relation to fingerprints, data and other samples.
Amendment 33, in schedule 9, page 135, line 32, after “8” insert “, 8A”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 31.
Amendment 34, in schedule 9, page 137, line 34, leave out paragraphs (h) to (j).
This amendment removes reference to the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police and the Royal Air Force Police from the definition of “police force”. Those forces should not be included in that definition because members of those forces do not have the power to obtain fingerprints, data or other samples under Schedule 9.
Amendment 35, in schedule 9, page 137, leave out lines 38 to 40.
This amendment removes reference to the tri-service serious crime unit from the definition of “police force”. Members of that unit should not be included in that definition because they do not have the power to obtain fingerprints, data or other samples under Schedule 9.
Amendment 36, in schedule 9, page 137, line 40, at end insert—
“‘recordable offence’ has—
(a) in relation to a conviction in England and Wales, the meaning given by section 118(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and
(b) in relation to a conviction in Northern Ireland, the meaning given by Article 2(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12));”.
See Amendment 31.
Amendment 37, in schedule 9, page 138, leave out lines 5 to 19 and insert—
“‘responsible chief officer of police’ means—
(a) in relation to fingerprints or samples taken by a constable of the Ministry of Defence Police, or a DNA profile derived from a sample so taken, the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;
(b) in relation to fingerprints or samples taken by a constable of the British Transport Police Force, or a DNA profile derived from a sample so taken, the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force;
(c) otherwise—
(i) in relation to fingerprints or samples taken in England or Wales, or a DNA profile derived from a sample so taken, the chief officer of police for the relevant police area;
(ii) in relation to relevant physical data or samples taken or provided in Scotland, or a DNA profile derived from a sample so taken, the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland;
(iii) in relation to fingerprints or samples taken in Northern Ireland, or a DNA profile derived from a sample so taken, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;”.
This amendment and Amendment 38 make provision identifying the responsible chief officer or police in relation to fingerprints or samples taken by a constable of the Ministry of Defence Police or the British Transport Police Force.
Amendment 38, in schedule 9, page 138, line 22, at end insert—
“(2) In the definition of ‘responsible chief officer of police’ in sub-paragraph (1), in paragraph (c)(i), ‘relevant police area’ means the police area—
(a) in which the material concerned was taken, or
(b) in the case of a DNA profile, in which the sample from which the DNA profile was derived was taken.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
See Amendment 37.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twenty First sitting)
Thursday 8th September 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 September 2022 - (8 Sep 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee that Mr Speaker has asked me to read out. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes @parliament.uk.
Clause 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 116
Power to specify environmental outcomes
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 173, in clause 116, page 133, leave out lines 13 to 20 and insert—
“(a) protection of the natural environment, cultural heritage and the landscape from the effects of human activity;
(b) maintenance, restoration or enhancement of the natural environment, cultural heritage or the landscape;
(c) protection of people and their long-term health, safety and wellbeing from the effects of human activity on the natural environment, cultural heritage and the landscape;
(d) protection of the climate from the effects of human activity;
(e) monitoring, assessing, considering, advising or reporting on anything in paragraphs (a) to (d).”
This amendment would broaden the definition of environmental protection to allow the Secretary of State to specify outcomes relating to climate change obligations and public health objectives.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Part 5 of the Bill concerns the Government’s proposed new approach to assessing the potential environmental effects of relevant plans and major projects —namely, environmental outcomes reports. The reports are intended to replace the partly European Union-derived systems of strategic environmental assessment, including sustainability appraisals, and environmental impact assessments.
The Government’s rationale for the change in approach—this is gleaned not only from reading the Bill and its accompanying documents, but from the 2020 White Paper—is that the SEA and EIA systems can lead to duplication of effort and overly long reports, which inhibit transparency and add unnecessary delays to the planning process, and that the EOR framework will provide for clearer, simpler and presumably shorter assessments, with designated environmental outcomes that are easier to understand and monitor, and therefore to mitigate, remedy and compensate for, and will ensure that strategic and project scale assessments are properly joined up.
The Government’s critique significantly overstates the weaknesses of the SEA and EIA systems. That is not to suggest that they are perfect; for example, they can rightly be criticised for too often producing assessments that are too complex and cumbersome to be used effectively. However, the Government already have the necessary powers to improve many aspects of the SEA and EIA systems, if they chose to exercise them. Overall, the existing systems have made an enormous difference to how the environmental impact of development is considered. They are well established and understood, and when used correctly, they provide for rigorous, evidence-based, comprehensive assessments of the direct and indirect effects of projects and their mitigation in a way that involves the public.
As things stand, we really have no idea whether the proposed system of environmental outcomes reports provided for by part 5 will ultimately improve the process of assessing the potential environmental effects of relevant plans and major consents, because, as with so much of the Bill, the detail required to understand how EORs will operate in practice is simply not available. For example, we have no idea what range of factors the EORs can consider, or when EORs will be mandated. These and a wide range of other questions will be answered only when the regulations that set outcomes emerge in due course. Given the wide-ranging powers provided for in this part of the Bill, that is a cause of real concern.
When it comes to the basic EOR framework provided for by clauses 116 to 130, we take the view that an outcomes-based system could be an improvement on the present systems, given that they assess on the basis of the significance of effects on all relevant environmental receptors—although, again, it is impossible to arrive at a considered judgment on how much practical difference the EOR system will make when we have no idea how detailed or ambitious those outcomes will ultimately be, or what timeframe they will involve.
However, while we recognise the potential for an outcomes-based approach to establish an improved system of environmental protection, we are extremely concerned that part 5 is likely to lead to an approach that is too limited in scope, is insufficiently aligned with important obligations and requirements in environmental and climate legislation, and—for all the assurances to the contrary—provides an opportunity for environmental regression in the future.
It is essential that we have confidence that the new environmental outcomes report system will maintain the robustness and scope of the strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment frameworks, and will lead to tangible improvements in our natural environment, as well as helping to fight climate change. If we are to build that confidence and provide reassurance that the new system will deliver improved outcomes, the EOR framework provided for in clauses 116 to 130 needs strengthening in a number of important respects. Amendment 173, and others that will be debated later, are designed to achieve that aim.
Clause 116 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that set out specific environmental protection outcomes against which relevant plans and consents will be assessed, and sets out what the Secretary of State must have regard to when making those regulations. Subsection (2) sets out the definition of environmental protection for the purposes of the Bill. The Committee will note that it includes
“protection of the natural environment, cultural heritage and the landscape from the effects of human activity”,
as well as protection of people from the effects of human activity on each of those, and their maintenance, restoration or enhancement.
We take no issue whatsoever with any of the definitions in subsection (2). Indeed, the Government’s decision to explicitly include references to cultural heritage and the landscape in what is meant by “environmental protection” is welcome; but we still believe that the definition is too limited. Specifically, protection of the climate, and protection of people’s long-term health, safety and wellbeing from the effects of human activity, should be explicitly included in the Bill’s definition of environmental protection. Amendment 173 provides for that broader definition, and would enable the Secretary of State, when making regulations under part 5 of the Bill, to specify environmental outcomes relating to both climate change obligations and public health objectives.
In short, the amendment would expand the range of possible environmental outcomes that Ministers could, if they chose, specify by regulation in the future, and therefore expand the range of things that assessments under the EOR regime could encompass. It would allow the Secretary of State to, for example, specify as a desired outcome the long-term flood-proofing of key infrastructure, so that it is climate resilient; or measures to promote walkability and urban cooling, so that development promotes key public health objectives. This is a sensible and proportionate amendment, and I hope that the Minister will consider accepting it.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. As we have heard, the amendment seeks to expand the definition of “environmental protection” in clause 116 to include explicit reference to public health and climate change. Before I turn to the detail of the clause and the introduction of the new environmental outcomes reports, I should say that the Government have been clear that the new system is intended to improve the assessment of projects’ environmental impacts, and to place environmental matters—including climate change and public health—at the centre of decision making.
In line with that ambition and the commitment to non-regression, the definitions in clause 116 reflect and build on the definitions in the Environment Act 2021. Many of the terms used in the EU system of strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment duplicate existing processes, or are poorly understood. Our broader approach to defining what outcomes may be covered will allow the Secretary of State greater flexibility to consider all relevant matters, including those that form part of the current assessment regime, such as human health and climate change.
As set out in subsection (2)(b) of the clause, the definition of environmental protection includes the protection of people, which would allow the Secretary of State to consider matters relating to health when setting outcomes. Subsections (2)(a) and (b) refer to protection from the effects of human activity, which would include protection from the impacts of climate change. Further, the definition of environmental protection is covered by the definition of the natural environment in subsection (3). This definition includes natural systems, cycles and processes, to ensure that matters such as climate change are properly built into consideration of outcomes under the new system.
While climate change and human health will undoubtedly be important considerations in setting outcomes, it is not necessary to make more explicit reference to them in primary legislation; doing so would risk limiting the range of outcomes that can be set, and risk our suggesting that climate change and health will be considered above other environmental topics that may, in individual cases, be equally important.
It is right that environmental outcomes reports focus on the full range of environmental issues. Developing the detail of what outcomes will be covered in secondary legislation will allow us to consult stakeholders, so that we can ensure that climate change and public health commitments, as well as other environmental matters, are captured. Outcomes will also draw on the extensive commitments made across Government, including the requirement in subsection (5) for the Secretary of State to have regard to the latest environmental improvement plan when setting outcomes. Setting out details around climate change and public health in secondary legislation will also enable us to minimise the risk of duplication and ensure alignment, as these are important considerations across other policy areas in the planning and consenting systems. In the light of these assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is able to withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate that response, but I do not think it addresses the concern raised by the amendment. I very much welcome what the Minister said about the Government’s intention to put public health and climate at the centre of decision making. The concern, though, is that although the clause gives a comprehensive list of what “environmental protection” means, it does not explicitly reference public health—human health—or climate, and I cannot for the life of me understand how inserting those things in the Bill explicitly would in any way limit the outcomes that could be set. We would merely be specifying and clarifying that outcomes relating to those two objectives were caught under the powers in the Bill.
I note what the Minister says about forthcoming secondary legislation capturing those objectives, but this issue speaks to our concern that there is a real gap in how the Bill addresses climate and public health. We feel that while opportunities to reinforce the Government’s commitments are woven through the fabric of the Bill, those issues are often neglected or left out.
I will not press the amendment, but we shall come back to the issue of public health and climate, because they need to have a much more central role in this legislation, and to be written into the Bill in many important respects, including in clause 116. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 174, in clause 116, page 133, line 29, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) Before making any EOR regulations which contain provision about what the specified environmental outcomes are to be, the Secretary of State must ensure they are in accordance with—
(a) the current environmental improvement plan (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021),
(b) biodiversity targets including those required under sections 1 and 3 of the Environment Act 2021,
(c) the duty to conserve biodiversity as required under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006,
(d) local nature recovery strategies as required under section 104 of the Environment Act 2021, and
(e) lowering the net UK carbon account as required under section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”
This amendment would ensure that when using EOR regulations to specify environmental outcomes the Secretary of State would have to ensure they are in accordance with the current environmental improvement plan and additional criteria.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 52—Super-affirmative procedure for major regulations made under Part 5—
“(1) If the Secretary of State proposes to make EOR regulations which fall under section 192(5), the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a document that—
(a) explains the proposal, and
(b) sets it out in the form of draft EOR regulations.
(2) During the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the document was laid under subsection (1) (‘the 60-day period’), the Secretary of State may not lay before Parliament draft regulations to give effect to the proposal (with or without modifications).
(3) In preparing draft regulations under this Part to give effect to the proposal, the Secretary of State must have regard to any of the following that are made with regard to the draft regulations during the 60-day period—
(a) any representations, and
(b) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft regulations.
(4) When laying before Parliament draft regulations to give effect to the proposal (with or without modifications), the Secretary of State must also lay a document that explains any changes made to the proposal contained in the document laid before Parliament under subsection (1).
(5) In calculating the 60-day period, no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than 4 days.”
This new clause would require major EOR regulations made under Part 5 to be subject to the super-affirmative procedure.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 116(5) simply states that before making any EOR regulations that contain provision about what the specified environmental outcomes are to be, the Secretary of State must have regard to the current environmental improvement plan within the meaning of part 1 of the Environment Act 2021. At present, that environmental improvement plan is the 25-year environment plan, which was published in 2018 and is due to be reviewed next year. We welcome the fact that the Bill makes it clear that when making EOR regulations, the Secretary of State will have to have regard to that 25-year environment plan, although I encourage the Minister and his departmental colleagues and officials to do what they can to ensure that its review is completed before this Bill receives Royal Assent, so that the measures in the plan are fully aligned with the now operable Environment Act 2021, and so that the nature of the safeguard provided for in subsection (5) of this clause is clear and unambiguous.
However, while the explanatory notes to the Bill make it clear that the Secretary of State can draw on other relevant material when developing outcomes, there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State must have regard to other important obligations and requirements set out in environmental and climate legislation beyond the environmental improvement plan.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend is doing on the environment, and to try to ensure that the climate is front and centre in the Bill. Commitments were made at COP26 and COP15. We need the application of those commitments to come through in planning; there is nowhere else that they can come through. Is it not important that the determinations reached at those summits be brought into the planning process?
Matthew Pennycook
It absolutely is. The amendment seeks to ensure that the obligations we have made, and the way that they are written into domestic legislation, is accounted for in the framework that part 5 provides for. After all, we are talking about how to assess the environmental impact of development. It stands to reason that requirements and obligations that flow from things such as the Climate Act 2008 should be written into the Bill explicitly. Leaving them out is problematic because it would lead to important EOR regulations being made without there being sufficient regard to significant relevant targets, duties, strategies and obligations, which, we should remember, the Government themselves legislated for.
Amendment 174 seeks to replace subsection (5) of clause 116 with a subsection containing a more comprehensive list of requirements that the Secretary of State should have regard to—it is only “should have regard to”—before making any EOR regulations that make provision about specified environmental outcomes. In addition to the environmental improvement plan, the Secretary of State would have to have regard to: biodiversity targets, including those under sections 1 and 3 of the Environment Act 2021; the duty to conserve biodiversity, as is required under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; local nature recovery strategies, as is required under section 104 of the Environment Act 2021; and lowering the net UK carbon account, as is required under section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008.
Putting that expanded list of requirements in the Bill would strengthen the EOR framework by making it perfectly clear that the Secretary of State has to take into account those important legislative commitments when making EOR regulations.
In addition to expanding the list of requirements that the Secretary of State must have regard to before making any EOR regulations relating to specified environmental outcomes, we also believe there is a compelling case for greater parliamentary oversight of any such regulations that are proposed. The explanatory notes to the Bill make it clear that set outcomes will be subject only to public consultation and the affirmative parliamentary procedure. I will not detain the Committee with a digression on the limitations of the affirmative procedure as a means of effective parliamentary scrutiny—we are all familiar with them, and have discussed them in the context of the Bill previously.
Clause 116 and the other clauses in part 5 provide the Secretary of State with expansive powers allowing them to pass, by regulation, as yet unspecified, and potentially far-reaching, measures affecting the environment and environmental law, so we strongly believe that any such regulations should be subject to the super-affirmative procedure. New clause 52 would provide for use of that procedure for regulations made under part 5. I hope the Minister will give the new clause consideration, along with amendment 174.
Paul Scully
I understand the hon. Member’s concerns, but I hope to explain why the approach that we have taken in the Bill is sufficient. Amendment 174 would require environmental outcomes to be set in accordance with the environmental improvement plan, biodiversity targets, local nature recovery strategies and the Climate Change Act 2008. The environmental improvement plan, the current iteration of which is the 25-year environment plan, is where the Government set out how we aim to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. The Government have made it clear that an outcomes-based approach will be developed to support our environmental ambitions. For the purposes of this legislation, the environmental improvement plan is the most relevant document in informing the setting of outcomes. It is where the breadth of the ambitions are captured, and it is itself informed by a wide range of commitments and matters from other sources.
The Environment Act 2021 created a duty on the Government to prepare annual reports on the implementation of the environmental improvement plan, and to review and, if necessary, reissue the plan every five years. As such, it is a dynamic document that will evolve over time and reflect the most up-to-date position on the Government’s efforts to support the environment.
The environmental improvement plan also sets interim targets in respect of each of the key matters for which the Government have applied legally binding environmental targets, which will be reviewed regularly. That includes the biodiversity target mentioned in the amendment. Other more general duties and local strategies will also be informed by this overarching plan.
The amendment would also introduce a duty to act in accordance with a range of existing legislative provisions, and therefore risks creating potential conflict and unnecessary confusion. It is unclear how, for example, a national outcome could be set in accordance with a local nature recovery strategy, which is by definition spatial and site-specific.
Outcomes will cover a broad range of topics. The intention is not to create an exhaustive list of everything that will be considered when they are being set; rather, it is to recognise that the environmental improvement plan is at the heart of the Government’s agenda. Other duties will of course be reflected in outcomes at the moment they are set, but the duty to have regard to the current environmental improvement plan is the clearest way of ensuring that outcomes reflect the Government’s environmental ambitions.
With that in mind, it is important to note that the environmental improvement plan and commitments such as those under the Climate Change Act 2008 were not conceived as a way of informing outcomes for the EOR. As such, it would not be appropriate to set a hard requirement that EOR outcomes be set in accordance with those commitments.
The purpose of environmental outcome reporting, as is true of the existing system, will be to ensure that the right information is gathered to inform the right decisions, not to prioritise any one particular policy over another. Not everything in the environmental improvement plan will be relevant to development and environmental assessment, and there will be ambiguity as to how the plan should best be translated into outcomes for individual plans and developments. Equally, we will want to set outcomes in respect of landscape and cultural heritage, which are not in the scope of the plan.
When making EOR regulations that specify outcomes, we will have regard to the environmental improvement plan and other relevant considerations. Just as importantly, we will use the process of public consultation to ensure that we are capturing the outcomes that will best support the delivery of our environmental priorities. The amendment therefore risks both confusing and limiting the process by which outcomes are set. Given that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will be able to withdraw the amendment.
New clause 52 seeks to make the EOR regulations subject to the super-affirmative procedure—something comparatively new to me. We have sought to take a proportionate approach to parliamentary scrutiny and consultation, placing the strongest requirements on the core elements of the new system. Clearly, we want to ensure that we have the best debates, consultations and discussion on such incredibly important issues. The use of powers in this particular part of the Bill, however, is tightly constrained with broad use of the affirmative procedure to ensure that Parliament gets the opportunity to scrutinise regulations properly in detail.
In addition to requiring the affirmative procedure, clause 125 ensures that EOR regulations that cover the most significant aspects of the new regime—for example, those that specify outcomes—will also require public consultation or consultation with stakeholders. That will provide stakeholders and parliamentarians with the opportunity to consider the details of the proposed regulations in advance of their being laid. Regulations requiring public consultation will be followed up by an official Government response on how those views have been taken into account in setting the detailed policy.
Before engaging formally on the detailed regulations, after the Bill achieves Royal Assent we plan to launch a high-level consultation on the core elements of the new system—for example, on the outcomes-based approach to assessment and the use of the mitigation hierarchy in assessing reasonable alternatives. That will be combined with conceptual roundtables and expert policy forums to inform the design of the new regulations and wider implementation.
As such, the super-affirmative procedure would duplicate the consultation and the approval requirements, so we do not deem it necessary. It would only serve to slow down the process of bringing forward necessary reforms that we believe will help to improve the environment in the long run. Given that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member will agree not to press new clause 52.
Matthew Pennycook
I am somewhat reassured by that response from the Minister. However, I take issue with it in a number of respects. I appreciate fully that the 25-year environment plan is the current environmental improvement plan. It may be the most relevant document, but it is limited. I note the point about biodiversity targets, but the document does not contain all the other requirements in the legislation listed in the amendment. The environment plan may be informed by those other requirements, but it does not contain them and does not operate in the same way.
If I am honest, I struggle to understand the issue with the insertion of language relating to legislation the Government have passed, which one would hope has been aligned and made compliant with other bits of legislation that could create potential conflicts during the process of passing it. We remain concerned that the reference in subsection (5) is too limited and we would like to see a wider set of requirements written into the Bill, but I do not intend to press amendment 174 to a vote.
On new clause 52, I welcome the Minister’s comments on the processes that the Government intend to follow when it comes to designing EOR regulations. That measure of public involvement is welcome and will be an important part of the process, but we are still concerned that, overall, the safeguards are insufficient—I will come on to talk about the other safeguards provided in part 5. We do not believe that they tightly constrain the use of the powers; in fact, we think they do the opposite, and there are a number of loopholes that need to be closed.
I cannot for the life of me understand how a public consultation would duplicate the parliamentary oversight that would be afforded to this place by the super-affirmative procedure. I go back to the point I made on a previous amendment. These are broad, expansive powers, which are as yet unspecified. There is a need for greater parliamentary oversight, as well as other stronger safeguards. I am not going to press the new clause to a vote at this point, but we will come back to this and other matters on this part. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
I have said already that we are committed to delivering a modern system of environmental assessment that properly reflects the nation’s environmental priorities. The Bill allows us to introduce a new framework to replace the EU’s systems, while recognising the important role that environmental assessment plays. The previous regime could be overly bureaucratic and disproportionate. Expanding case law has led to a situation where unnecessary elements are being assessed for fear of legal challenges. The costs for big projects run into hundreds of thousands of pounds on occasions; yet, despite the lengthy reports, they often prove ineffective at securing better environmental outcomes or encouraging development to support the country’s most important environmental priorities.
The 25-year environment plan acknowledges that the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries of Europe. The 2019 “State of Nature” report led by conservation research organisations found that 41% of UK species are declining and one in 10 is threatened with extinction. Given the urgency with which we need to restore the environment to leave it in a better place for future generations, we desperately need a new approach.
The powers in the Bill will extend to all regimes currently covered by the EU system, to ensure the best approach for the interoperability between regimes, particularly for projects that are often in the scope of more than one regime, such as planning and marine. The new approach will be centred around the creation of environmental outcomes reports, which will directly set out how consents and plans should support the delivery of environmental priorities by assessing the extent to which they support the delivery of better environmental outcomes. That moves us away from the uncertainty of assessing likely significant effects to a more tangible framework that provides more clarity on what should be assessed and when.
Assessing consents and plans directly against those outcomes will ensure that reporting is focused on those matters that will make a real difference to environmental protection. In turn, that will support more effective decision making and make reports more accessible to the public.
The outcomes will be fairly high level and user-friendly, simply setting out environmental priorities. It will be the job of indicators underpinning those outcomes to measure the delivery towards the outcomes. Indicators will be created and outlined in guidance for the different types of plans and projects and for different spatial scales. For example, indicators could set out which air pollutants should be measured and against which limits to measure the contribution towards an air-quality outcome seeking to reduce emissions.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 175, clause 117, page 134, line 26, at end insert
“relative to the current status of the environment as assessed in a prepared baseline study”.
This amendment would ensure that the preparation of a baseline study which sets the context for assessing the environmental effects of a proposed project remains a core requirement of producing an EOR.
This amendment relates to a technical matter, but still an important one. Clause 117 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring the preparation of an environmental outcomes report for relevant plans and relevant consents, the criteria for which will be set out in due course in regulation. It is this provision that establishes the outcomes-based approach to assessment, which the Minister has just described, wherein anticipated environmental effects are to be measured against the specified environmental outcomes, which clause 116 provides the power for the Secretary of State to specify.
Clause 117 ensures that where an EOR is required, it must be taken into account when considering whether to grant planning consent and the terms on which it is given, or to bring a plan into effect. The core requirements of what an EOR should contain are set out in subsection (4). It specifies that an EOR
“means a written report which assesses—
(a) the extent to which the proposed relevant consent or proposed relevant plan would, or is likely to, impact on the delivery of specified environmental outcomes”.
Paragraph (b) specifies any steps that may be proposed in terms of mitigation, remediation or compensation, and paragraph (c) discusses any proposals about how paragraphs (a) or (b) should be monitored or secured.
It would therefore appear that, when it comes to EORs, the Government have in mind, essentially, a simplified environmental assessment report—one, as the explanatory notes make clear, based on the mandatory information required in the reporting stages of the environmental impact assessment directive and the strategic environmental assessment directive. However, in setting out the core requirements of what an EOR should contain, subsection (4) contains no reference to the need for an environmental baseline assessment to have been prepared. We believe that oversight needs to be addressed.
A baseline study is an essential part of preparing an EIA because it is necessary to assess the current status of any given environment prior to development taking place. It covers, for example, what habitats exist within the environment and how they are changing, or the type and number of species present, in order to accurately judge the expected impact of development on the outcomes previously specified. Indeed, because baseline studies are an integral part of the existing SEA and EIA systems, we believe their removal could well contravene the non-regression safeguard provided for by clause 120, which we will debate in due course.
When it comes to EORs, it is difficult to conceive of how they will operate in practice without some kind of baseline study taking place, because quantifying the impact of development on any given outcome requires that the precise characteristics of the locality in question are known.
By amending subsection (4)(a) of clause 117, amendment 175 simply seeks to ensure that the preparation of a baseline study, which would set the context for assessing the environmental effects of a proposed plan or consent, remains a core requirement of producing an EOR. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that the Government are content to accept the amendment or, if not, an explanation as to why the Government believe that baseline studies are no longer required when it comes to assessing the environmental impact of any given development.
Paul Scully
As we have discussed, amendment 175 would give an explicit requirement for the impact of a consent or plan to be set up relative to a baseline study on the current environmental state. Subsection (4)(a) of clause 117 explains that an environmental outcomes report must demonstrate how the plan or consent would affect the delivery of specified environmental outcomes. The environmental baseline is a reference point against which the assessment is carried out. It will remain part of the process of demonstrating how a plan or project supports the delivery of environmental outcomes.
While outcomes will reflect national priorities, it is important that they can be translated to the regional or local level, given that that is the level at which the plans and projects, which will require EORs, will normally take place. As such, outcomes will be underpinned by a set of specific indicators, which will measure the contribution of a plan or project towards outcomes. Those indicators will be relevant to the geography of an area and will change over time to reflect the latest scientific understanding. Indicators will outline how a plan or project shows whether they are contributing to outcomes, and will be tailored to the needs and characteristics of different outcomes.
The details of outcomes and indicators will be developed, as I have said, through consultation with relevant stakeholders, and we will work with experts to gain insights on how best to utilise baseline data to inform them and ensure that overall environmental protections are maintained. Following that, clear guidance will be provided setting out how a plan or project should use indicators to demonstrate that they are supporting outcomes.
I do not think that we are that far apart in this, and I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will accept my explanation that although the baseline data is clearly important in measuring those outcomes and using those indicators, we do not need the duplicative nature of having it in the Bill. I therefore hope the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate that response from the Minister. I think we would still like something to be written into the Bill regarding baseline studies. However, I very much welcome the clarification that he has just provided—that they will “remain part of the process” , and that they will be translated and tailored to the regional and the local level. I think that is very important and, on that basis, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
The outcomes-based approach to assessment will ensure that the Government’s environmental commitments and priorities are placed right at the centre of the consenting process, in a system that is streamlined, transparent, accessible and clear. As outlined in the previous clause, we would want to make reports user-friendly and concise, enabling communities to understand what forms part of the assessment and how impacts are measured via indicators. We also want to improve the accessibility of reports and the data that underpins them by improving their format and avoiding multiple PDFs of tens of thousands of pages, for example.
In order to introduce the new outcomes-based approach to environmental assessment, the Government need the power to require the production of an environmental outcomes report for relevant proposed contents and plans. In taking that power, the Government are able to ensure that, where a report is required for a relevant consent or plan, the report must be completed before consent is granted or a plan is adopted.
Furthermore, the clause ensures that where an environmental outcomes report is produced, it must be considered by the relevant decision maker, which means that decisions are informed by quality information that fully considers the environmental effect of the plan or consent. It also sets out what the content of the reports should be. They will primarily assess how the proposed consent or plan would impact on specified environmental outcomes, supporting our ambition to move towards an outcomes-based system.
In structuring the clause, we recognised the need to provide powers to support the reform of a wide range of environmental assessment regimes across Government, but we have sought to ensure that core requirements are brought to the fore. For example, reports must consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed consent or plan and assess any steps taken in line with the mitigation hierarchy. This is the first time that explicit consideration of the mitigation hierarchy has been included in environmental legislation. Importantly, that hierarchy recognises that prevention is better than cure. In every consideration, plans and projects should first seek to avoid the impact happening in the first place, before considering mitigation and finally compensation, which should be absolutely the last resort. That sequential approach will finally be enshrined in law.
Having the powers to set out specifics in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill will ensure that the new system is more dynamic, allowing for updates to our approach to be considered and consulted on as our understanding of the environment deepens. It will also allow the differences between regimes to be accommodated. The clause sets out crucial provisions required to implement environmental outcomes reports and ensures that reports have sufficient weight and status in the decision-making process. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 118
Power to define “relevant consent” and “relevant plan” etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 118 gives the Government a constrained power to set what plans and consents require an environmental outcomes report. The Government want to be clear about which consents and plans require assessment, and we will use subsequent regulations—bounded by the commitment to non-regression—to provide clarity on when an EOR is required. By clearly setting out the different categories for consent and the types of plan that require assessment, we will be able to address the key issue with the current system, where debate about whether assessment is required acts as a block to moving forward with meaningful assessment.
We want to avoid unnecessary screening work, so it is more likely that more plans and projects will automatically be subject to a proportionate report and only in borderline cases must a criteria approach be followed. Developers will know where they stand up front, and local planning authorities can save the time and resources that are usually taken on screening of opinions.
Let me reassure the Committee that the clause will be used to reduce uncertainty, not assessment. The Government remain committed to ensuring that all plans and projects assessed in the current system will continue to be assessed, while removing troublesome uncertainty. The Government will also consult on which projects and plans should be subject to EORs. Parliament will have the opportunity to debate and approve the regulations that set that out. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Moving on to clause 119, the Government have made it clear that the protection and enhancement of the natural environment is a policy priority, and the measures designed to achieve that should be consistent and long term. The existing system does little to follow through on the commitments made during the assessment process—for example, whether the mitigation measures actually work or are implemented in the first place. Environmental statements are often created at great length, only for the follow-up monitoring and reporting of the impacts on the ground to be inconsistent at best.
Our proposed reforms to environmental assessment therefore provide a renewed and stronger emphasis on monitoring, to ensure that stated outcomes are delivered and that remedial action is taken where required throughout all stages of the development process. That means that achieving environmental outcomes does not stop once a consent is granted or a plan adopted. Importantly, clause 119 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring action to be taken when monitoring or assessment processes have highlighted that a given outcome is not being delivered.
Those actions align with the mitigation hierarchy and the principles of avoidance, mitigation and compensation being built into that process to ensure accountability and to address fully any unanticipated or cumulative adverse effects on the environment.
Rachael Maskell
I have been listening carefully to the Minister. My concern about what he has been saying is that the process does not have sufficient teeth in the event that the EOR is not delivered. Can he clarify whether planning permission would be granted if the EOR requirement is not adhered to? Should that not be a condition for planning?
Paul Scully
The point is that some of that is to be looked at now. At the moment, an environmental assessment is effectively prose that may or may not be adhered to, whereas an environmental outcome is far more data driven, so it can be measured and mitigated, as I have said. That will happen in the lead-up to planning, but a lot will clearly be about how it is followed up after planning permission is given. As we have just been discussing, that effectively sets a baseline, saying, “That is the report; that is what you said you are going to do. You must now adhere to that, and we can follow up afterwards.” This is clearly a framework, and the teeth that the hon. Lady describes will need to be set out through enforcement teams and so on, but the measures provide a far more evidence-based approach to be able to follow up afterwards.
That is the point, because we will then have a dynamic monitoring process, which will account for any changes in conditions and available data to inform mitigation strategies. That is a significant benefit of the new system: it ensures that we take an ongoing approach to environmental protection rather than having just a snapshot in time. Monitoring the impacts over a longer period will allow for the collection of more high-quality data that can be used to drive better decision making and improve environmental outcomes.
We do not want an EOR to be an extra burden; we see it more as a rebalancing of resource and effort. We want a streamlined pre-consent process that provides up-front requirements and guidance, allowing more time to be spent on post-consent monitoring, which will be of far more value to the system in terms of both securing positive outcomes and making better use of the data produced so that we can learn from it.
Capturing that data also links to the digital powers in the Bill, and will ensure that the rich source of environmental data is put to use to inform future interventions and give a deeper and far wider understanding of the environment. It will be easier to form best practice and avoid making the same mistake twice. The clause is integral to ensuring that the environmental assessment process considers potential long-term environmental impacts, ensuring accountability and the delivery of outcomes, and ensuring that mitigation is working as it should. For all the reasons I have mentioned, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the detail provided by the Minister, but I will push him a little further on both clauses. Again, in the circumstances, I am more than happy for him to write to me to elaborate on his answers if he feels he needs to.
As the Minister said, clause 118(2) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out those consents that should be considered category 2. Although category 1 consents will always require an EOR, category 2 consents will be required to produce one only where they meet criteria set through regulations made under the provision. I would be grateful if the Minister gave the Committee an idea of the criteria likely to be set through regulations under this provision that will require a category 2 consent, and of the rationale behind those criteria.
Clause 118(4) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing a requirement for a consent in relation to a project. The requirement will be used, as in the current environmental impact assessment agriculture regime, where no other consenting mechanism exists. The Bill simply states that
“EOR regulations may impose a requirement for a consent in relation to project, which is to be a category 1 consent or a category 2 consent”.
Can the Minister explain the rationale for not specifying that the Secretary of State may impose a requirement for a consent in relation to a project only where no other consenting mechanism exists?
Clause 119(1) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how the delivery of specified environmental outcomes should be assessed or monitored. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have a general sense of how outcomes will be assessed and monitored under this new framework and, if so, will he share it with the Committee?
Finally, clause 119(3) states that EOR regulations may make provision requiring action to be taken, if an assessment or monitoring under subsection (1) or (2) determines that is appropriate for the purposes of compensating for a specified environmental outcome not being delivered to any extent. Will the Minister explain the thinking behind the penalties and remedies available in the new EOR system when it comes to environmental outcomes not being delivered, and will he tell us whether the Department has undertaken any work to research the impact of introducing an outcomes-based approach on rates of delivery and non-delivery of environmental targets in development projects?
Paul Scully
Let me try to answer some of those points, and I will happily write with extra detail should I fail in my objective. We will clearly be consulting on which developments require an EOR when certain criteria are met, and we will publish those following Royal Assent. In line with our commitment to non-regression, we will ensure that any plan or project requiring assessment under the current regime because of its potential impact on the environment will continue to do so under the new framework. We want to avoid unnecessary screening work, so it is likely that more plans and projects will automatically be subject to a proportionate report, but only in borderline cases. As I said, we will work towards that through a consultation process on the criteria approach.
The regulations will determine the process for considering whether the plans or projects meet the criteria for a full environmental outcomes report, and clearly we will work with stakeholders to inform our approach to the criteria, and the processes for determining whether those criteria have been met. We want to ensure that the development management system continues to determine projects. We want the EOR to reform the process, but we do not want to replace it. The majority of consenting regimes base the consenting decision on a range of different factors. They will need to make a subsequent decision following assessment, but we want to ensure that the Secretary of State effectively has a light touch on this because, having done the consultation with stakeholders, this should be done at a local level as best we can.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich talked about monitoring. The detail of monitoring regimes, including how long monitoring should be carried out for, will be set out in regulations to reflect the different approaches required for each assessment regime. It is not a one-size-fits-all system, because that is unlikely to be optimal, but the intention is that, with a more streamlined pre-consent process, more time and resource can be put into post-consent monitoring, which will likely be of far more value both in terms of securing positive outcomes and gathering useful environmental data to feed back into the system.
One thing that I am not sure I brought out enough in my speech is that the data that the exercise provides, being more data driven rather than the prose that I was talking about, will not only be useful for permissions and monitoring but have a far wider effect on our understanding of the environment in general, because some really interesting data will be brought out that cannot be captured in the analogue system that we have at the moment. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question about the research to date, so I will write to him on that, and other points that I have not covered.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 118 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 120
Safeguards: non-regression, international obligations and public engagement
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 176, in clause 120, page 137, line 21, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) The Secretary of State may only make EOR regulations if doing so will result in no diminution of environmental protection as provided for by environmental law at the time this Act is passed.”
This amendment would ensure that the new system of environmental assessment would not reduce existing environmental protections in any way rather than merely maintaining overall existing levels of environmental protection.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 177, in clause 120, page 137, line 26, leave out from “Kingdom” to end of line 28.
This amendment would ensure that for the purposes of making EOR regulations international obligations are not limited to those that regulate the process for environmental impact assessment.
Matthew Pennycook
The clause provides for a series of safeguards premised on a commitment to non-regression of environmental protection, suitable opportunity for public engagement and international obligations. While we welcome the inclusion of these safeguards in the EOR framework set out in part 5, we feel strongly that they are insufficiently robust. When it comes to public engagement, we note that subsection (3) of the clause specifies that
“the public will be informed of any proposed relevant consent or proposed relevant plan”,
and should have an opportunity to engage in the process, as per the requirements of the Aarhus convention. We are concerned the force of the provision is undermined by the fact that “adequate public engagement” is defined in subsection (4) as whatever the Secretary of State “considers appropriate”.
When it comes to international obligations, it is welcome that subsection (2) specifies EOR regulations
“may not contain provision that is inconsistent with the implementation of the international obligations of the United Kingdom”,
but we are concerned that in qualifying this constraint by specifying it only applies to those international obligations
“relating to the assessment of the environmental impact of relevant plans and relevant consents”,
the Bill could restrict applicable international obligations to those that simply regulate the process for environmental impact assessment. The Minister may say it is entirely appropriate that they do so, but we feel qualifying the constraint in this way could have the effect of ensuring that international obligations relating to air or water quality standards, for example, need not be considered because they would not form part of the actual “assessment” of environmental impacts. We believe the constraint provided for by subsection (2) should be less ambiguous, so as to close a potential loophole. Amendment 177 would achieve that objective by deleting the relevant qualification to make clear that EOR regulations may not contain provision that is inconsistent with the implementation of any international obligations that apply to the UK.
Finally, we welcome the inclusion of a non-regression clause in the Bill, on the grounds that any additional safeguard that constrains the use of the regulation-making powers in this part of the Bill is beneficial. However, we have three serious concerns about the effect of the non-regression provision set out in clause 120(1). Firstly, its application is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State; it is they who have to be satisfied that making the regulations will not result in environmental regression. As such, it is an entirely subjective constraint, and one that is unlikely to ever be challenged in the courts. Secondly, we are extremely concerned about the practical implications of specifying the Government’s non-regression commitment applies only to the
“overall level of environmental protection”.
In failing to make clear that the principle of non-regression, as it relates to the EOR framework, applies to specific aspects of environmental protection, we fear the new system will engender, as the CEO of Wildlife and Countryside Link, Richard Benwell, put it to the Committee in the oral evidence he provided many weeks ago,
“a runaway offsetting mentality where the assurance that things will be better overall can be taken to obscure a lot of harm to the natural environment at the local level.”––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2022; c. 117, Q146.]
Thirdly, we are also concerned about the definition of “environmental law”, cited in subsection (1) and set out in subsection (4) of the clause. In limiting the non-regression constraint in the Bill to environmental law as defined in the Environment Act 2021, a number of relevant considerations would not be covered—including some of those set out on the face of the Bill in clause 116, such as cultural heritage and landscape—as they fall outside of the definition used in the 2021 Act. Section 46 of the Environment Act 2021 defines environmental law as “any legislative provision” that is “concerned with environmental protection”. A literal interpretation of environmental law, so defined, would cover only UK law. The Minister may argue that is unproblematic, given the commitments relating to “international obligations” set out in subsection (2), but for the reasons I have addressed we are concerned they are defined on the face of the Bill in an overly restrictive manner that will limit how much protection they provide against potential future regression.
We therefore believe that subsection (1) should be replaced with a new subsection specifying that the Secretary of State may make EOR regulations only if doing so will result in no diminution of environmental protection as provided for by environmental law at the time that the Act is passed, as provided for by amendment 176. The amendment would significantly strengthen the non-regression constraint provided for in the clause, so that Ministers cannot determine to make EOR regulations that increase environmental harm in some areas if they judge they are somehow offset in others, but must ensure there is no diminution of environmental protection whatsoever. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these two important amendments.
Paul Scully
The new system that we have been discussing is all about improving environmental assessment, not weakening environmental protection. Moving to the outcomes-based approach that I have outlined will allow the Government to set ambitious outcomes, building on the Environment Act 2021 and other environmental commitments.
I understand the spirit and reasoning behind amendment 176, which proposes to amend the wording of the non-regression provision in clause 120 so that regulations must “result in no diminution of environmental protection”.
However, in drafting the Bill, we recognised the need to provide assurance that the new system will continue to support the protection of the environment, and the clause was drafted specifically to mirror the provisions of the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement. That ensures that these reforms live up to our commitment to non-regression with our partners in that area. If we are to meet the complex environmental challenges that we face, we need to take a holistic approach and focus on how well the system delivers for the environment overall. We will concentrate on the aspects of the system that deliver real, positive outcomes for the environment, rather than on bureaucracy.
Where needed, we will seek to streamline the system, for example in areas where there is duplication of other existing processes, thereby allowing resources to be better focused elsewhere. However, along with the commitment to non-regression, we have also included significant duties to consult with the public and relevant stakeholders. We are also giving Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise subsequent regulations through the affirmative procedure, which is entirely appropriate. In the light of those reassurances on our commitment to maintaining environmental protections, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw amendment 176.
Amendment 177 provides that EOR regulations must not be inconsistent with any international obligations, rather than specifying consistency with international obligations relating to environmental assessment. The inclusion of clause 120(2) demonstrates the Government’s commitment to legislating in a manner that is consistent with our international obligations. The clause seeks to provide explicit assurance of the importance of international obligations in respect of environmental assessments, and those commitments will be at the foundation of the new process of environmental outcomes reports, which builds on the core principles at the heart of the current practice.
Ultimately, the focus of EORs is the assessment of the environmental impact of relevant plans and relevant consents, which is why clause 120 refers to our international obligations relating to the assessment of the environmental impact of relevant plans and relevant consents. That ensures that relevant international obligations, such as those under the Espoo and Aarhus conventions, are properly reflected. To make the provision broader would sacrifice clarity and risk introducing confusion as to which areas of international law are particularly relevant and pertinent in such cases. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will also consider withdrawing amendment 177.
Matthew Pennycook
I welcome the Minister’s clarification. Particularly on amendment 176, it is extremely useful to hear that the wording was chosen specifically to mirror that in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement. I do not want to digress into that agreement in any way—no one on the Committee would thank me for doing so—but it is a useful clarification.
I take what the Minister said about amendment 177; I do not intend to press it to a vote. However, we strongly feel that, international obligations aside, when it comes to safeguards the Bill still contains too many loopholes, many of which I mentioned when I was speaking to the amendment. In particular, what concerns us about the non-regression provision in clause 120 is the reference to only
“providing an overall level of environmental protection”.
We are extremely concerned that that might mean that environmental harm could take place at a local level because the Government could say, “Overall, we are satisfied that the level of protection has been maintained.” For that reason, and to make very clear how strongly we feel about the point, I am minded to push amendment 176 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Scully
As I have said, we are committed to ensuring that the new system of environmental assessment will provide at least the same level of overall environmental protection as the existing system. The clause enshrines that commitment, building on the landmark Environment Act 2021, and is in line with our commitments in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement.
It is a vital commitment, and it will ensure that EORs support the Government’s objective to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. We want to make it clear that, in introducing these reports, we are not trying to lower standards or bypass important environmental protections, and so it is important that we enshrine in legislation this commitment to non-regression.
We have also ensured that the Secretary of State’s powers are tightly constrained when considering whether overall levels of protection have been maintained. We have provided significant commitments to consultation and secondary regulations, which will be laid under the affirmative procedure and will thereby enable parliamentary scrutiny on this issue.
This clause also sets out that regulations made may not be inconsistent with the implementation of the relevant international obligations of the UK. As in other parts of the planning system, public engagement is a crucial feature of environmental assessment, and the clause sets out our commitment to maintaining opportunities for public engagement to take place. This will ensure that the public can be involved in the process of preparing an environmental outcomes report, in line with the requirements of the Aarhus convention, which includes provision on public participation in decision making on environmental matters. The clause provides a strong commitment to non-regression and to maintaining opportunities for public engagement, as we move to that new system, and so I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 120 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121
Requirements to consult devolved administrations
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 178, in clause 121, page 138, line 3, leave out “after consulting” and insert “with the consent of”.
This amendment, along with Amendments 179 and 180, would ensure that EOR regulations which contain provision within devolved competence can only be made with the consent of the relevant devolved administration.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 179, in clause 121, page 138, line 16, leave out “after consulting” and insert “with the consent of”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 178.
Amendment 180, in clause 121, page 138, line 34, leave out “after consulting” and insert “with the consent of”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 178.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 121 specifies that, where EOR regulations contain provisions within devolved competence, the Secretary of State must consult the relevant devolved Ministers. Our concern is that this is an unduly weak requirement that could see EORs imposed in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland without the consent of their respective devolved Administrations. Because the requirement is only to consult with the relevant devolved Ministers about EOR regulations containing provision within devolved competence, we could see EORs imposed without consent. We fear this could lead, advertently or inadvertently, to environmental regression if an EOR specified weaker outcomes than that sought by the relevant devolved Administration.
These three amendments simply seek to ensure that the consent of the relevant devolved Minister is obtained when EOR regulations contain provision within devolved competence to safeguard against that particular scenario. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to them and the concerns they are designed to address.
Paul Scully
It is a delight to hear the one-man show. In bringing forward the EOR system, we are absolutely committed to respecting the devolution settlements. We are currently in active discussions with the devolved Administrations as to how the powers should operate across the UK, including whether there is any scope to extend them to provide a shared framework of powers across the UK.
The provisions in the Bill are focused on the environmental assessment regimes in areas reserved to the UK Government, but there are limited circumstances in which the UK Government have historically legislated in areas of devolved competence, such as between the inshore and offshore regimes for marine works. As such, to maintain the current position, the clauses as introduced include a limited power for the UK Government to legislate in areas of devolved competence where the relevant devolved Administration has been consulted. A failure to include that power risks introducing a legislative gap that could undermine the delivery of certain types of development, which is clearly not something we want to happen.
When the discussions with the devolved Administrations have concluded, the Government will bring forward any necessary amendments to implement what is agreed with them. Rather than doing that here and now in Westminster, we want to do it in full consultation with the devolved Administrations: we want them to be absolutely at the heart of those discussions. I hope that on the basis of that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I accept those assurances, and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
I will be brief, because I think my previous remarks addressed the point about transposition of the EU directive leading to the creation of a range of environmental assessment regimes that have different territorial extents and applications. As I have already explained, discussions are ongoing with the devolved Governments regarding how best to work together to ensure a consistent and coherent approach to environmental assessment across the UK. We are hopeful that we can work closely with devolved Governments to extend the powers in the Bill to place all the nations on an even footing. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 121 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 122
Exemptions for national defence and civil emergency etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
In some rare cases, particularly those relating to national defence or responding to a civil emergency, it may be necessary for the Secretary of State to direct a project to progress without an environmental outcomes report when the production of one would usually be required. The provisions in clause 122 enable that. The clause does not aim to bypass environmental protections, which are important for all the reasons I have set out; it simply accounts for those rare instances in which there is an urgent need to progress with development. Clause 122 replicates a similar provision in the existing regulations, and would only be used in the most extreme circumstances.
In addition to the civil and defence needs, the clause also provides powers via regulations for the Secretary of State to be able to direct that no environmental outcomes report is required in other circumstances. Such directions will, of course, be presented in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, and will be consulted on and constrained accordingly.
Rachael Maskell
I appreciate the Minister highlighting that there could be extenuating circumstances in which the measures could be suspended, but he has not set out what mitigations will be put in to address that, either in close proximity to that or elsewhere. Could he say a bit more about that?
Paul Scully
Good question! As well as the non-regression clause that I talked about earlier, we have a built-in power under these clauses that allows aspects of the regulation to apply even if a project can initially progress without an EOR. That is a good way to manage those high-risk needs with environmental protection and get that balance right. It allows a project to progress without a report, but still requires certain aspects of the regulations to be adhered to, such as monitoring and remediating effects once the plan or project is in operation. I again highlight the fact that that would only relate to the plans and projects in greatest need, relating to matters of national importance.
Paul Scully
Exactly. This is why you get paid the big bucks, Mr Hollobone. Thank you very much.
Matthew Pennycook
The Minister touched on a number of the issues that I wanted to raise. This is a series of important clauses and therefore I have a couple of questions for him. I hope that I can draw out a little more detail, but as ever, he is more than welcome to write to me if he requires to do so.
Clause 122(1) states:
“The Secretary of State may direct that no environmental outcomes report is required to be prepared in relation to a proposed relevant consent which is solely for the purposes of national defence or preventing or responding to civil emergency.”
Subsection (2) of that clause further states:
“EOR regulations may provide for further circumstances in which the Secretary of State is to be able to direct that no environmental outcomes report is required to be prepared.”
Can the Minister give the Committee some examples of the “further circumstances” in which no environmental outcomes report may be required as per subsection (2), given that civil emergencies and national defence, as he said, are already covered by subsection (1)?
Clause 123 is a new provision that sets out the enforcement provisions that can be made in respect of EORs. The Minister touched on a few, I believe, but I would be grateful if he could provide any further detail as to how enforcement of EORs will operate and how they will operate compared with the current SEA and EIA systems.
Clause 125(2) specifies that the Secretary of State, as the Minister has also said, may consult only
“such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”
before making certain EOR regulations, or issuing, modifying or withdrawing certain guidance. Can the Minister give us some idea of which persons or bodies the Secretary of State would be likely to approach before making or modifying regulations and guidance? Specifically when it comes to statutory consultees, which he spoke about, is there any rationale for not specifying statutory consultees in the Bill?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. On the formal consultation, I cannot yet give him details as to whom specifically we will speak to, barring the fact that, as I said earlier, we will clearly seek to speak to all the key stakeholders that we work with really closely. Indeed, we have worked with a number of those in the lead-up to the Bill. We want to ensure that we get the expert advice of people not only who can contribute to our knowledge, but who will be using the system, so that we can get the benefit of that on-the-ground experience, because what we do not want to have is unintended consequences.
On enforcement, the Bill amends and strengthens the powers and sanctions available to decision makers. We want to ensure that the new system is effective at delivering on the outcomes, so it will be necessary for the regime to have enforcement mechanisms. The exact details of the new system are in the process of being developed. We will be working with the same stakeholders on the design of the new system, in terms of enforcement as well as exemptions, and we want to ensure that we have a full consultation.
In addition to consultation, there will be parliamentary debate. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that we are prepared to work collaboratively to ensure that this regime—the framework that we are talking about now—works well in practice, and that that coherent approach makes it easier to understand and enforce. Enforcement is no good if we just have a bit of prose that means nothing; we need to make sure we enforce that as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 122 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 123 to 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 127
Interaction with existing environmental assessment legislation and the
Habitats Regulations
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 181, in clause 127, page 141, line 32, leave out “in particular” and insert “not”.
This amendment would ensure that any specified environmental outcomes arising from EOR regulations made would augment not substitute those arising from existing environmental assessment legislation and the Habitats Regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 182, in clause 127, page 142, leave out lines 12 and 13.
This amendment would ensure that EOR regulations cannot be used to amend, repeal or revoke existing environmental assessment legislation.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 127 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations on how the EOR framework provided for by part 5 interacts with existing environmental assessment legislation and the habitats regulations. The explanatory notes accompanying the Bill state:
“This is necessary to ensure that where an Environmental Outcomes Report is prepared, where appropriate, this is capable of meeting the requirements of existing environmental assessment so as to avoid duplication.”
It would be recognised as meeting both.
Our serious concern is that by providing for requirements undertaken in relation to an EOR to satisfy the requirements under the habitats regulations, this clause could allow the Secretary of State to substitute the protections afforded by those regulations with weaker requirements that had undergone only limited parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure. In our view, this is deeply problematic because the habitats regulations provide for an extremely high level of environmental protection for our most precious and vulnerable habitats and species, indeed for greater protection than the SEA and EIA systems, requiring as they do applications proposing a development that will affect a site to first prove that mitigation is in place to avoid significant harm, or that there is an overriding public interest reason to proceed and compensatory measures are necessary. In revising subsection (2) of the clause, amendment 181 would address that concern by ensuring that any specified environmental outcomes arising from EOR regulations made would augment, not substitute, those arising from existing environmental assessment legislation and the habitats regulations.
An additional concern with this clause comes in the form of subsection (3), on page 142 of the Bill, which provides for EOR regulations under the clause to
“amend, repeal or revoke existing environmental assessment legislation”.
Even with the list of what constitutes “existing environmental assessment legislation” set out on the face of the Bill in clause 130(1), we believe this provision is unnecessarily broad. Amendment 182 therefore seeks to remove clause 127(3) to ensure that EOR regulations cannot be used to amend, repeal or revoke existing environmental assessment legislation.
It is essential, as the Minister himself accepted during debate about an earlier clause, that we recover nature and that we do so quickly, or we risk irreparable damage to the natural world upon which life depends. To that end, proven, effective laws should be maintained and strengthened rather than undermined in any way. For that reason, I hope the Minister will appreciate the concerns we raise and give both of these amendments serious consideration.
Paul Scully
Given the scale of the underpinning legislation, as we transition from the current complex system of environmental assessment to the new framework of EORs, the Government require powers to manage the interaction between the old and new systems.
The interaction provisions in clause 127 are designed to ensure that when an EOR is prepared, it is capable of meeting the requirements of existing environmental assessment legislation where appropriate. That allows the Government to guard against duplication while the various assessment regime owners bring forward regulations to introduce environmental outcomes for their regimes. It also allows existing environmental assessment legislation to meet the requirements of an EOR, which is to avoid duplication and manage co-ordination across the different assessment regimes. We all know that it takes time to consolidate the complex legislation covering a number of Departments and agencies, and we want to make sure there are no gaps in the process.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for that response. I note and accept what he said about amendment 182, although I will go back and satisfy myself that the concerns raised in that regard are fully addressed.
We continue to have concerns about the issues raised by amendment 181. I heard what the Minister said about the Government’s intention for these provisions to avoid duplications and enable co-ordination, but I remain concerned that, as drafted, they could lead to the powers substituting rather than augmenting the protections provided for by the habitats regulations, in particular. The Minister’s defence was that we are protected in that regard by the safeguards in clause 120, but he has heard our concerns about their robustness. Along with our concerns about clause 120, that is one of the fundamental weaknesses of part 5 that we would like to see addressed. For that reason, I will press amendment 181 to a Division. This will be the final one today.
Paul Scully
As we have already heard concerns about clause 127, let me use this opportunity to clarify its intention and to provide the reassurance that it is does not allow any amendments to the habitats regulations.
The clause serves two purposes. First, it enables us to make sure that assessments under the new EOR system will be interoperable with those required by existing environmental assessment and habitats legislation. Secondly, it gives the Government the power to repeal, revoke or amend the current SEA and EIA regulations in each of the relevant regimes once the new framework for an environmental outcomes report is in place.
The provision is about providing powers in relation to the interaction between the new system and existing environmental assessment legislation and the habitats regulations. It does not remove the need to comply with the habitats regulations. It is an ancillary power. Any regulations must relate to the purpose of the clause, which is about interaction between processes. Regulations can set out how an EOR report can meet the requirements of existing environmental assessment legislation or the habitats regulations, but only in so far as the processes interact.
There has been some misinterpretation, or a difference in opinion, about subsection (3), which allows regulations to
“amend, repeal or revoke existing environmental assessment legislation.”
The habitats regulations are specifically excluded from that power, meaning that it is not possible to make any changes to the habitats regulations under it. This is simply about streamlining within the constraints of the legislation. We want to avoid overlaps, such as, for example, repetitions in evidence, while optimising the synergies—for example, the effects identified in the habitats regulations assessment that could help to inform the contribution to outcomes in the EOR. This is about how the two are co-ordinated and how they work together. The clause must also accord with our commitments to non-regression under clause 120, so any interaction between assessments must maintain overall environmental protections.
In parallel, the Government have indicated our intention to improve the habitats regulations regime, while maintaining or enhancing the level of protection it provides. DEFRA has recently consulted on that via the consultation on the “Nature Recovery” Green Paper, which the Government will respond to in due course. There are real opportunities to improve processes across the piece, and the clause allows for that interaction between processes and for the benefits of efficiencies and streamlining. I hope the Committee is reassured on the purpose of the clause, which is heavily constrained and seeks no powers to make any changes to the habitats regulations. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 127 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 128
Consequential repeal of power to make provision for environmental
assessment
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 128 is a straightforward provision to remove what will become an obsolete regulation-making power, along with references to that power, after the powers contained in the Bill come into effect. It was a broad power, allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations for consideration to be given to environmental effects. It will no longer be required, as the new powers will cover the consideration of the environmental effects of development. The provision simply aims to clear it from the statute book.
Clause 129 gives power to make regulations on a variety of procedural and technical matters relating to environmental outcomes reports. Those include, for example, setting out who should prepare reports, to whom completed reports should be given and how information should be collected and provided. It also makes provision for regulations to state the level of assistance required from local authorities in the production of those reports, when reports that fail to meet various requirements can be declined, and how appeals and reviews of decisions should work. The clause also makes provision for the collection of fees. We intend to keep fees to a minimum, but we will seek views from stakeholders in future consultations.
While those matters are generally procedural or technical in nature, they are all important and necessary for the successful implementation of environmental outcomes reports. Setting those out in regulations allows for those matters to be decided following consultation, and allows for flexibility in the system. That means that the specific technical ways that the system works can be more easily updated in the future, and it will allow the difference between regimes to be accommodated.
Finally, clause 30(1) is a straightforward provision that simply lists all the current regulations that implement the EIA and SEA regimes. As such, those are the regulations that the powers in this part will allow the Secretary of State to replace with EOR regulations. They implement the assessment regime in a similar way across a broad range of sectors, from transport to energy production to town and country planning. It is our intention that this remains the case for the regulations implementing the new system.
Subsection (2) is primarily a reference list, bringing together the various definitions used in this part. It also introduces some straightforward definitions such as “public authority” and “relevant document”.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 128 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 129 and 130 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)
National Security Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Thursday 8th September 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate National Security Act 2023 View all National Security Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 September 2022 - (8 Sep 2022)
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
Let me briefly say that we all pray for Her Majesty; it is an extraordinary moment. God save the Queen.
Clause 53 sets out how certain part 2 notices are to be served. A part 2 notice, an extension notice, a revival notice or a notice of a variation of the measures without consent must be served in person to the individual in order to have effect, whereas other notices may be served through the individual’s solicitor.
Schedule 5 contains a supporting power for the police to enter and search premises to find an individual for the purpose of serving a notice on them. This is so that the individual is informed in person and the implications of the notice can be explained to them.
Clause 53 also provides that when a subject is served the relevant notice they must be provided with a confirmation notice that sets out the period for which that notice will remain in force. This will give the individual certainty regarding the period of time for which the measures apply to them.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Clause 53 states that a confirmation notice must be served on an individual who is served with a state threats prevention and investigation measure, or a revival notice or extension notice, setting out the period, including dates, for which the individual will be subject to the STPIM, unless it is quashed or revoked before its expiry.
We recognise the need for the clause, and it is right that there is a great deal of emphasis on serving the notice to an individual personally. There is, however, a distinct lack of detail in the Bill about who can serve a notice. Counter-terrorism police have again been very helpful in taking me through how such work might be undertaken operationally, but I put it to the Minister that it is not clear in the legislation that it would need to be a constable of a certain rank, or that it would need to be a constable. Other areas of the Bill do specify that.
It is not just a case of serving the notice: it is also the point at which a person is informed of the terms of the part 2 notice notice and presumably relocated and monitored to ensure their compliance with it. I wish to probe whether the provisions in clause 53 would benefit from being ever so slightly tightened up in that specific regard.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Minister has laid out clearly what clause 53 does. It sets out the requirements for notices to be served and for how long they are in force, and it makes it clear that the individual is not bound unless they have been personally served the notice. I have one question: although the list of different sorts of notices is very clear in the legislation, are individuals to be told in the documents with which they are served of their rights to challenge, seek a revocation or seek a variation of the notice served upon them?
Tom Tugendhat
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I will have to write to him on that question. As for the question about the rank of the officer, a constable or any warranted officer is the answer.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Contracts
Holly Lynch
I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 54, page 38, line 29, at end insert—
“(2) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out how the Secretary of State intends to exercise the power under this section. The statement must include an list of illustrative examples of the kinds of contracts or other arrangements this power relates to.”
Holly Lynch
Clause 54 makes me uncomfortable and requires some thorough consideration. Amendment 67 seeks to flesh out some of the detail as to what the clause means in reality.
The explanatory notes say:
“This clause grants the Secretary of State authority to purchase services in relation to any form of monitoring in connection with measures specified in Part 2 notices. This would include, for example, electronic monitoring of compliance with the residence requirement provided for in Schedule 4.”
Frankly, the Government have a somewhat chequered history in awarding contracts, and while I will not go through the back catalogue, it is against that backdrop that we ask for more detail before we sign off on this clause. Section 29 of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 includes the same provision, so I hope that the Minister is in a position to share with us how private companies have been involved in the monitoring of those subject to TPIMs, so that we can gain a clearer understanding of how that would be replicated with STPIMs.
I am looking for reassurance on two fronts. The first is that we are not using contractors who are vulnerable to hacking or other forms of cyber-attack. There will be marked differences between the cohort of people currently subject to a form of monitoring—and even those subject to TPIMs—compared with STPIMs, which stand to present different challenges, so what tech will be used for monitoring someone subject to a part 2 notice, and how do we ensure that we, but no one else, knows where that individual is? I am assuming, based on what little we are asked to go on in the clause and explanatory notes, that we could be talking about wearable technology or monitoring hardware and software. I suspect that at least some component parts will be made overseas, if not all of them.
We sought to establish where the ankle monitors that are currently used come from. With some help from the House of Commons Library, we found that in November 2017 the Ministry of Justice awarded a contract for the supply of electronic monitoring services, which includes software and hardware, to G4S, and it appears to have been extended, but we could not establish where they were purchased from or just how robust they are. How do the Government plan to address that concern operationally and ensure that there are no holes to be exploited in the technology itself? How do we write those protections and technical specifications into contracts under clause 54?
Secondly, we are dealing with particularly capable people, potentially with the support of entire nation states. I want to know that our security services and trained police officers are undertaking this monitoring work, rather than private contractors who stand to be overwhelmed if not equipped and trained adequately. I had a look at what happens currently. The National Audit Office’s recent report published in June 2022, called “Electronic monitoring: a progress update”, states on page 22 that G4S supplies tags and home monitoring equipment as part of HM Prison and Probation Service’s tower delivery model for its tagging transformation programme.
HMPPS is an agency of the Ministry of Justice and is responsible for tagging. The report explains that the tower contracting approach has four different suppliers, each responsible for a different element of the national programme: supplying and fitting tags to offenders; running a monitoring centre; providing underlying mapping data; and providing the communications network. HMPPS acts as an integrator to co-ordinate work across the four suppliers. Can the Minister confirm that that is the same model, which has a number of private contracts and moving parts, presumably with the exchange of a lot of information between those moving parts, that we use for monitoring those subject to TPIMs, and that it is therefore the same way in which we will monitor people subject to STPIMs?
I would greatly appreciate some clarification from the Minister on that, to ensure that our national security cannot be outsourced and that we have specialist and trained people from our dedicated services undertaking this really important monitoring, using technology that can withstand the threat of outside interference. Given the situation in which we find ourselves, I urge the Minister to consider the merits of amendment 67.
Tom Tugendhat
Clause 54 grants the Secretary of State authority to use third parties to assist in relation to any form of monitoring in connection with the measures specified in part 2 notices. As the hon. Member for Halifax rightly identified, the electronic monitoring of compliance with the residence measure, such as by entering into a contract with a third party to provide tagging services, is exactly the form of contract that is envisioned. In practice, the Government will ensure efficiency by aligning, where possible, with existing contracts, and therefore may use ones that are already set up for comparable provisions in law, such as TPIMs.
The intention of the amendment is to seek clarity about what types of contracts the Home Secretary might enter into in relation to STPIMs and how she intends to exercise the power. Though the Government do not feel that publishing further detail on any such contract is necessary, I absolutely assure the Committee that the clause is not designed to do anything to outsource intelligence services. Instead, it is a standard approach that we have with TPIMs, where in some instances it is necessary for the Government to outsource some services. An example of such is the contract for ankle monitoring services to which the hon. Lady referred. She will be aware of my own views on outsourcing technology to various states; she can be absolutely assured of my own interest in making sure I prosecute this.
Stewart Hosie
I understand perfectly well what the Minister is saying about the occasional need to outsource. I also understand why he would say that much of the contractual information should not be released. However, there are valid questions about the clause. What information would a third-party contracting company have about the subject? For example, would that company be told that the subject may not even have been convicted of committing a crime, but was the recipient of a state threats prevention and investigation measures order?
Tom Tugendhat
As the right hon. Member will be aware, in all such circumstances there will be a great variety, because what might be shared with somebody providing one service may not be the same as what is shared with another. It is also evident that the normal regulation on protecting privacy would apply where appropriate, and the Government would therefore abide with all due legal requirements. I cannot give a further commitment than that, for the obvious reason that the variety in which such contracting would apply is enormous. I can therefore only assure him that the existing previsions would endure.
Holly Lynch
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. He talked about the convenience of extending existing contracts; however, given the cohort of those who will be subject to STPIMs, that is the exact point that concerns me. We are talking about a volume of those who have committed more typical types of crime, but we need to think much more carefully about the types of technology, the software and the individuals involved in monitoring those subject to STPIMs.
Given the Minister’s reputation and understanding of the detail, and as he has already given me those assurances, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he will go back to officials and interrogate clause 54, so that he and I are satisfied that there are no vulnerabilities in that approach. I hope we can continue that conversation with the Minister. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55
Legal aid in relation to Part 2 notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
I thank the hon. Member for Halifax; she can be assured that my commitment to protecting our security through electronic means, as through every other means, will endure.
Clause 55 will extend the scope of legal aid so that it will be available for state threats prevention and investigation measures. It will allow individuals to access legally aided advice and representation in relation to a part 2 notice, subject to means and merits tests. That replicates the position in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.
The measures are a civil order designed to protect and mitigate the risk to the public from individuals who pose a threat but cannot be prosecuted or, in the case of foreign nationals, deported. Legal aid will be made available in those cases due to the restrictive nature of the measures that an individual may be subject to. It is right that we balance robust investigation and prevention measures with the access to justice and judicial oversight that this House would demand.
Holly Lynch
As we have already heard, clause 55 inserts a new paragraph in schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2021, to enable individuals subject to part 2 notices to receive civil legal services in relation to those notices.
The Chair
Order. Will the shadow Minister speak up, for the benefit of colleagues at the back?
Holly Lynch
Thank you for that helpful observation, Chair; I will certainly will.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley will discuss part 3 of the Bill shortly. However, clause 55, which is in part 2, and clauses 62, 63 and 64, which are in part 3, pull in completely opposite directions in principle. Dare I say that it is almost as if they were produced by two different Government Departments that have not been speaking to each other?
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important point. Does she agree that the reasoning appears to be that this is such an intrusive and important provision, affecting people’s rights in such a potentially serious manner, that legal aid, subject to merit and means, ought to be available? Would that not also be an argument for getting rid of the whole of part 3 of the Bill?
Holly Lynch
My hon. Friend makes a really powerful point: there are very different principles evident in this element of part 2 compared to those in part 3. We will get into the details of part 3 shortly, but my hon. Friend is exactly right. Part 3 prevents civil legal aid from being available even to British children with any spent terror convictions, yet we are providing legal aid to those who we suspect of engaging in espionage on behalf of hostile foreign states. There is absolutely a powerful case for that, but my hon. Friend is right that that powerful case extends beyond the provisions in part 2 and should also be considered in relation to part 3.
There is a distinct lack of rationale and consistency in the proposals. When we continue into the debate on part 3, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide us with a greater understanding of why those differences occur in the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
I will restrict myself to discussing clause 55 now rather than considering part 3, because clause 55 covers a particular use of legal aid, which is the use of legal aid in relation to the subject who may be under an STPIM notice. It is therefore a very particular application of legal aid. The question to which the hon. Lady refers, which I understand, is one that, as she knows, we have already discussed, and I look forward to having further discussions with her on it because it does raise questions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56
Interpretation etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
Clause 56 gives the meaning of numerous terms used throughout this part of the Bill. Subsection (2) sets out that the Secretary of State can consider evidence that was relied upon for the original part 2 notice when assessing whether to continue with measures or to impose new measures on a subject. This will be alongside evidence of engagement in
“new foreign power threat activity”,
where relevant for a new notice. This ensures that the Secretary of State is able to consider all the relevant information that may imply a pattern of behaviour. It does not weaken what we discussed when we considered clause 33: evidence of
“new foreign power threat activity”
is required if a further part 2 notice is to be applied after five years.
Subsection (3) provides that
“if a Part 2 notice is revived under section 42(6)”
when considering whether there is
“new foreign power threat activity”,
which could allow for a new STPIM after five years, that new activity must take place at some point after the original imposition of the measures and not necessarily after the revival.
Stewart Hosie
I want to raise one issue in relation to clause 56(5), which relates to a provision in cases in which the Secretary of State does not bother to respond to an application to vary or revoke a part 2 notice. That is treated as a decision not to vary, but from when? Given the importance of the tight timescales within which to lodge appeals, in respect of a decision not to vary when the Secretary of State chooses not to respond, does the clock start ticking when the application is sent to the Secretary of State, when it is received at the ministerial office or when the Secretary of State takes a decision not to respond? When does the clock start ticking to allow subsequent action in the courts to be taken if the Secretary of State simply chooses not to respond and that is taken to mean a thing?
Tom Tugendhat
The clock does not start ticking until the notice is enforced. At that point, the timing begins.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57
National security proceedings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 59, in clause 58, page 42, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) If the court concludes following its consideration under subsection (2) that the claimant has not committed wrongdoing involving—
(a) the commission of a terrorism offence, or
(b) other involvement in terrorism-related activity,
subsection (3) does not apply.”
Clauses 58 to 60 stand part.
Tom Tugendhat
Under the Bill, courts can formally be required to consider whether to reduce or withhold damages awarded when they find for the claimant in a national security claim where the claimant’s own wrongdoing of a terrorist nature should be taken into account. I will set out the detail of the reforms when I speak to clauses 58 and 59.
On clause 57, it is important to set out the types of cases in which the powers that would be exercised in clauses 58 and 59 would apply, and those in which they would be excluded from applying. The clause establishes that the reforms to reduce damages would apply only in cases that relate to national security proceedings. Those are cases in which one of the parties in the proceedings has presented evidence or made submissions to the court on a matter of national security. That particularly applies to specified types of claims—for example, those involving the use of investigative powers or surveillance, or the activities of the UK’s intelligence services, and cases relating to terrorism-related activity in the UK or overseas. However, the legislation excludes claims brought under the Human Rights Act 1998. The clause specifies that the reforms apply only to claims that are brought against the Crown, which reflects the fact that this cohort of cases is aimed at actions brought against our national security services.
Clause 58 details the measures under which courts can be formally required to consider whether to reduce or withhold damages awarded when the court finds for the claimant in a national security claim, but the claimant’s wrongdoing of a terrorist nature should be taken into account. This measure is aimed at those cases where a claimant, often based overseas, makes a claim against UK security services that is based on, or related to, the claimant’s own involvement in terrorist activity. Although courts already have discretion over the amount of damages to award, they can in theory make a declaration on a finding of fact outcome with no award. In civil tort cases, however, this approach is very rarely taken. In such cases, the courts follow a regular pattern by seeking to establish liability, calculate compensation and award damages. The Bill would go further by requiring courts to consider reducing or removing damages in exceptional cases. These are cases involving matters of national security in which the claimant’s case relates to their involvement in terrorism—for example, to personal injury sustained in the course of such activities—where a claim is then made against UK security services.
It is important to note that the Bill does not fetter the court’s discretion; judges will still be able to determine cases fairly, independently and objectively. However, we think it is appropriate in these cases that they consider the claimant’s conduct as well as the state’s. Here, as in the companion measures on damages freezing and forfeiture, the Government have an overriding duty of public protection and the safety of society. The measures will reduce the prospect of large sums in damages being paid to people associated with terrorism, who may use those resources to fund acts of terror.
In addressing amendment 59, I have spoken about the duty imposed on the court to consider, in the circumstances of the case and on the evidence presented, whether it would be appropriate for the claimant’s damages award to be reduced, including to nil. The key word there is “consider”. The legislation is not fettering the court’s discretion. Judges will assess whether, on the balance of probabilities, the factors set out in subsection (2) are made out, and if they are, whether a reduction in damages is appropriate. If the court is satisfied, it will assess what an appropriate reduction in damages should be. In making that assessment, the court will receive submissions from both the security services and claimant, and there will be a right of appeal. The proceedings will be able to rely on the closed material procedures where necessary, to ensure that there is a fair trial and that the evidence is tested. It is also important to note that the claimant will have a right of appeal against the decision of the court.
Amendment 59, tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, seeks to make it explicit in the Bill that the court will not be required to consider reducing damages when the claimant has not been involved in the commission of terrorist offences or other terrorist-related activity. The Government’s intention is not for this reform to apply in national security cases where a claimant had no involvement in wrongdoing of a terrorist nature; nor is it contemplated that the security services would make an application for this duty to be exercised by the court in such cases. The Government will seek to introduce an amendment to clarify this point in the Bill once consultations with parliamentary counsel have concluded. In such case, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment, and I will be happy to discuss the issue with her in advance of the Government tabling its proposed amendment.
Clause 59 provides some supplemental procedural requirements, including safeguards, for the Crown’s application for the court to exercise its duty under clause 58. As I have outlined, the measure is aimed at those cases where a claimant, often based overseas, makes a claim against the UK security services that is related to that claimant’s involvement in terrorist activity. Clause 59 supports and supplements clause 58 by setting out the essential requirements of an application made under that clause. The procedural and evidential requirements are set out, as well as the grounds on which the court may refuse an application. We are confident that our measures provide a reasonable, proper and proportionate balance between the right to access justice, and the need to protect national security and to properly deploy the resources devoted to it. The reforms will have a deterrent effect on litigation, so that the UK is no longer seen as such a soft touch for litigation of this nature.
Finally, clause 60 is designed to ensure that interpretation of the legislation by the courts and others will be consistent with terms defined and understood in existing statutes that concern national security, and in measures to combat terrorism. As such, the clause defines relevant terms used in the Bill, such as “terrorism offence” and “intelligence service”. That ensures that there is no inconsistency or ambiguity in the wider legal framework, and that the Bill complements existing legislation. The clause clarifies the relatively narrow cohort of cases at which these reforms are aimed, which are those brought against the Crown on matters of national security, in which a claimant has had some involvement with terrorist activities or offences.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I have heard what the Minister said. The Committee is finding common cause on these matters, as we do on much of the Bill. This is in no way a criticism of him, his speech or what he is offering, but it is a shame that there has been no Justice Ministers on this Bill. Frankly, part 3 of the Bill is far more concerned with justice measures than it is with home affairs in the classic sense. I have felt for some of the many Home Office Ministers who have been in front of us during this Committee in the role of Security Minister; they have had to justify things that did not relate to their Department.
My problem with part 3 more generally—then I will come on to my amendment—and this was clear from the evidence sessions, some four Ministers ago, concerns the nature of deterrents. As we go through the Bill and look over each acronym—we have all learned them like a second language by now—we are seeking to protect and secure our nation. Nobody in this room has any greater claim to do that than anybody else. That is all we seek to do. The trouble with much of part 3—evidence on this has been presented to us—is that it potentially reverses that. Parts of it are of concern for the prevention of terrorism. That is a fundamental line that needs to be drawn. Labour certainly wishes the Government, with their new slew of Ministers, to go back and investigate whether prevention is at the very heart of what is being suggested in part 3 more generally.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Sadly, over the past 12 years, legal aid has been cut back in this country. It is now a tax on the innocent, in my view. Would she agree that, while people find legal aid for potential terrorists abhorrent, there is a long list of other people that the public might want to withdraw legal aid from? That could include rapists, paedophiles, murderers—you name it. The core point is that those individuals need to go before a court. That is not just for those individuals, but for the potential victims, so that we can ensure that the truth comes out and justice is served.
Jess Phillips
I agree 100%. For much of my career, I have been painted as being very one-sided on such matters, but I know that justice has been properly served to the victims I have worked with in my life by a justice system that is properly resourced.
I have seen the degradation of legal aid harm victims’ processes in court. It holds things up and, in lots of cases—certainly in the civil courts, which is what part 3 is largely about—it has caused a perverse situation whereby perpetrators are able to cross-examine victims, as neither has access to any advocacy because neither qualified for legal aid. There is therefore the perverse situation that victims of domestic abuse or rape can, in family court, be cross-examined by their rapist. There is potential for that same unintended consequence as a result of what is being proposed in the Bill. I say that it is an unintended consequence; I think that the will to do what has been put in the Bill comes from a decent, if somewhat misguided, place.
Mr Jones
I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend. The problem with the Bill, as she suggests, is that we have a Home Office Minister, and an MOJ shadow operation in the back. The lifting of that shadow, via the dismissal of the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), might help the process and ensure that we get a Bill that is at least functional and does everything we want it to do.
Jess Phillips
Throughout this Committee, a lot of people have been called on to comment on what is going on internally on the Government Benches. I may be less qualified than others, but I suspect that what my right hon. Friend says about the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton may well be true. I wish him the best of luck on the Back Benches.
I will move on to the amendment. I have heard what the Minister has graciously said about the Bill not intending to come in the way of people who are caught up in acts of terrorism. However, its drafting leaves that open. I also hear what he says about proposing further amendments in this space.
Amendment 59 seeks to protect innocent bystanders, or even victims of crime, from being excluded from seeking damages for harm caused by the state. The Bill provides for a duty on the court, in cases where evidence is related to the intelligence services, to consider reducing damages that could be paid in a claim against the state. Potentially, the whole amount can be denied. While we of course support the concept that public money via damages should not be used to fund terrorism, the drafting of the clause is incredibly broad. The potential consequences of such loose and opaque language are disturbing and must be taken seriously if we are not to undermine the values we seek to uphold with this legislation.
I will demonstrate the issues—as I am sure nobody here will be surprised to hear this—through a gendered lens. In the discourse on security and terrorism, we commonly forget about women. In the assessment, analysis and debate, the impact and experiences of women do not often play a central role. I will use the platform I have to unpack the issues through consideration of how they will affect a victim of gendered violence.
Earlier this year, a case hit the headlines. The BBC claimed that an MI5 informant—I shall call him X—used his status to abuse his partner. I will share just a few of the details from the investigation. Beth—not her real name—a British national, met the MI5 informant online. As time passed, she became aware that he collected weapons, and he made her watch terrorist videos of violence. She realised he was a misogynist and extremist. Beth claimed he sexually assaulted her, was abusive and coercive, and used his position in the British security forces to terrorise her. She said:
“He had complete control. I was a shadow of who I am now,”
and:
“There was so much psychological terror from him to me, that ultimately culminated in me having a breakdown, because I was so afraid of everything—because of how he’d made me think, the people that he was involved with, and the people who he worked for.”
Beth says X told her he worked as a covert human intelligence source, infiltrating extremist networks. Beth claimed he told her that his status meant she could not report his behaviour:
“It meant that I couldn’t speak out about any of his behaviour towards me, any of the violence I went through, sexual or physical, because he had men in high places who always had his back, who would intervene and who would actively kill me, if I spoke out”.
In a video filmed on Beth’s phone, X threatens to kill her, and attacks her with a machete. She is screaming as the video cuts out. A few hours later, Beth says he tried to cut her throat. X was arrested and charged, but the case was dropped, and the BBC claims its investigation uncovered serious issues with the police response to this incident. That is an entirely different speech for an entirely different day. Heartbreakingly, Beth had a mental breakdown and was hospitalised.
Another previous partner—we will call her Ruth—says that X also abused and terrorised her. He threatened her life and that of her child:
“He said he would be able to kill me and my daughter, too, and then put our bodies somewhere and no one would ever know who I am.”
Ruth was unable to speak due to trauma and was also admitted to hospital. She said:
“I was psychologically broken, really broken”.
There are many issues to discuss around this case, regarding how the state and intelligence services should balance the need to safeguard individuals and the need for informants who infiltrate the darkest circles of society. What I want to outline, however, is the horrendous, hellish experience of those two women at the hands of this man X: the trauma, the violence, the abuse, the isolation, and how the man exploited his position to terrorise those women, who had done nothing wrong. Under the clause, if those women had sought damages for harm caused by the state, those damages could have been limited, or reduced to zero.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not the state doing harm, but the individual?
Jess Phillips
There is almost certainly always going to be an ideological difference between the hon. Lady and me on personal responsibility and the responsibility of the state. It is of course the individual doing harm, but it is the state that intervenes to protect the parties, or the state that allows cases to be closed. The idea that the state does not have a responsibility for the human rights of a victim of crime such as this when it comes to how they are treated when they try to interact with the state is, I am afraid, for the birds. Almost every single rape victim I have ever met—I have met thousands—tells me that the initial trauma they were put through is almost nothing compared with the trauma of going through any particular state system.
The provisions of the clause, as it stands, mean that if the women had sought damages for harm, those damages would be limited, potentially, to zero. These are completely innocent bystanders, victims of crimes in which the intelligence services and their power were weaponised to abuse and control them. These women could be denied redress even if wrongdoing by the state was proven. This case, where a man was videoed attacking a woman with a machete, was then closed. Even if it were found and proven that the state was responsible, the woman would still not have a claim. The current drafting does not require that the matter over which damages are sought is directly related to terrorist activity.
I have used this case—a covert human intelligence source case—as an example, but the concerns apply to many other situations and many people whose actions will have had nothing to do with criminal activity. That cannot be right. The provisions are simply too broadly drawn.
The amendment would mean that the limitations to seeking damages apply only to those who have committed wrongdoing involving terrorism. I have made my feelings clear about part 3 of the Bill, but this is simply an amendment to make sure that innocent people definitely do not fall within the scope of the provisions when they are caught up in a terrible situation, which I am very glad the Minister has recognised. The Bill must include this constraint.
There are other broad, loose elements in the Bill that are concerning. I raise them now and urge clarification from the Minister. Seeking damages is a tool to hold the state accountable. The clauses apply only when courts have already found the UK Government liable for wrongdoing. How are the Government going to ensure the provisions in these clauses are not used to allow the Government to evade being held accountable for their actions?
The current drafting seems to suggest that, if there is any evidence related to national security or the intelligence services, the damages for harm could be reduced or erased. The Law Commission has highlighted that that could create a perverse situation where the state could introduce pointless or insignificant national security evidence in order to avoid paying damages under the provisions in the Bill. How will the Government safeguard against that situation? It is a perfectly reasonable to want to have safeguards against that situation in place.
Reprieve has argued that clauses 57 to 60 could limit the ability of victims of torture to seek legal redress for harm done. The state could claim, for example, that in becoming complicit in torture or abuse, the UK was seeking to prevent or limit some other risk of harm, and so reduce or erase damages for a claimant.
Clause 57 rightly excludes from the definition of “national security proceedings” any claims under the Human Rights Act 1998. Our concern is the breadth of the clauses. They potentially enable the state to avoid paying out for UK complicity in torture and abuse under UK civil law. Most survivors of torture seek redress through ordinary civil claims. I will not go into details because it is sub judice, but the case of Jagtar Singh Johal, which was debated in the House yesterday, springs to mind.
We seek reassurance that the clauses will not be used to evade accountability and redress for complicity in abuse. Furthermore, the involvement of the intelligence services in other countries is covered by the Bill, but how do the Government intend to ensure that conduct is legal and ethical under UK law? What safeguards exist around that?
Many concerns and questions remain about the drafting of this part of the Bill, and we urge that our amendment be included in it. We will seek to vote on this issue at the next Commons stage of the Bill’s passage should we not be satisfied, but I have heard the Minister’s words and I thank him.
Maria Eagle
I endorse what my hon. Friend has just said from the Front Bench regarding the breadth of some of these provisions, but before the Minister replies I want to put another point to him. There is going to be a question about the necessity of the provisions, and whether or not they give a court any real, additional power beyond what it already inherently has.
There is a general requirement that judges would apply in any case to those coming before the court and seeking redress, which is that they have to come with clean hands. If any court has a case before it where some ne’er do well is trying to take advantage of court proceedings to get damages for something that they then intend to use for nefarious purposes, it is perfectly normal for that court, under its inherent jurisdiction and the rules of equity, to take into account, when deciding damages, whether or not the applicant has come to the court with clean hands.
Mr Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that what tends to get the headlines in newspapers is when people bring claims in these kinds of cases? Some of the cases seem quite horrific and brazen, but what never gets reported is that they are usually thrown out, because, as my hon. Friend has outlined, the courts already have powers to do so. The fact that someone has the ability to bring a case does not necessarily mean that it is going to be successful.
Maria Eagle
Indeed. Certainly, my experience of the courts is that judges are not daft: if they have somebody arguing a case before them and seeking damages who has been a very badly behaved individual, that person is less likely to get damages in the first place, and to the extent that they get any damages, they are likely to be exceedingly small—probably not enough to cover the costs they have incurred in bringing the case. Where those cases have been legally aided, zero damages would certainly be an option in most of them.
As such, I wonder whether any of these provisions are actually necessary. They are setting out requirements for judges, telling them what they must do in all cases and creating extra procedures, but they do not go an awful lot further than the inherent jurisdiction of the court under the general rules of equity. As I say, judges are not daft: they know what their powers are, and they tend to apply them.
My other concern regarding these provisions is that, if they stay in the Bill and ossify into court procedures that have to be undertaken in each case, there will be a slippery slope. This legislation addresses instances where especially badly behaved people are coming before a court, seeking damages that they intend to use for nefarious purposes. In this particular case, it is terrorism-related offences, but what about gangsters? What about murderers? We can all think of other dodgy characters who could go to court without clean hands, seeking damages to further their nefarious behaviours.
Once all these procedures are set in aspic, in statute, it is very easy for draftsmen—well, I am not having a go at parliamentary draftsmen, who work very hard. It is easy for the next outraged junior Minister, clearly not from the Home Office but from some other Department, to say at some point in the next couple of years, “We will use those provisions that were in the National Security Bill.” We may see a slippery slope, where these provisions are extended to other nefarious characters who might decide to go before the courts seeking damages. All the while, judges have an inherent jurisdiction and can make their own decisions. I am really not sure that the measures are at all necessary, and while the Minister is looking at some of these things, I invite him to think about removing them entirely. In any event, even if he decides that these unnecessary measures will remain in the Bill, they are certainly too broad.
Mr Jones
There is lots in the Bill on which there is cross-party agreement. We want to achieve a situation whereby law enforcement, our agencies and others have maximum powers to stop the real threat out there from those who wish to do us harm. Clause 57, and the ones on legal aid, which we will come to next, seem to have been plonked into the Bill as headline-grabbing measures—“We will do this because it will look as though we’re tough on terrorists.” I do not think they add anything to the ability of our security services to do their work; nor do they ensure that our courts deal with such cases effectively, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood has outlined.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley mentioned a case. I will not refer to it in detail—my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood and I are members of the ISC, which has looked at it in detail—but it comes back to the checks and balances point that I made this morning, and not just in terms of security. When the state does something that leads to a wrong being committed against a citizen, there needs to be a redress mechanism, and I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood that the provision will be extended to other areas. The measures will get a nice headline for the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton, who clearly wants to be seen as tough on terrorism, but I am not sure that, in practice, they represent anything of the sort.
Increasingly—and this is a slippery slope of which politicians need to be wary— we in this country react to newspaper headlines about what the courts do, such as “They have got X, Y or Z wrong.” Is the justice system or the jury system perfect? No, they are not, but they are robust. As my hon. Friend has just said, judges know in most cases when someone is pursuing a claim that is not grounded—they are experienced. I believe that we should leave that to courts and judges to decide.
When a newspaper rings up to say, “This judge has just done X, Y and Z. Isn’t this terrible?”, I always urge colleagues to dig into it because in most cases, the headline is completely different from the facts of the case. Without hearing the facts of the case in detail, making an instant judgment is difficult. I do not accept that our judges and judiciary are somehow woolly liberals who are prepared to turn a blind eye to justice; they are robust individuals who want not only to uphold the law, but to ensure that they get the right balance between the rights of the state and the rights of the citizen, as I mentioned earlier.
I accept that the Minister cannot accept the amendments today and that he perhaps does not want to carve out this piece of the Bill now, but discussion needs to be had on this—we will come to the next bit in a minute. If it does not get carved out here, when it goes to the other place, which is full of legal experts and people with a lifetime and huge experience in this area, it will get sliced to pieces. It is not just bad drafting; it is Ministers trying to put provisions in Bills for political purposes, rather than because they make common sense. As I said the other day, what irritates me is that, if we are going to take the provision out, we should do so in this House rather than allow it to go to the House of Lords. It will not survive that process, and we need to be honest about that. It is far better that we do it, and actually do our job, which is scrutinising legislation.
I said the other day, when the Minister was not here, that there is something that has built up over the last 21 years that I have been in the House: Ministers take it as a slight if a provision gets dropped when a Bill goes through the Commons, as though that is a weakness of the system. No, it is not: it is proper scrutiny. With a certain amount of co-operation, much of the Bill could go straight through, but measures such as this cannot, unfortunately.
Tom Tugendhat
First, I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley for her comments. I appreciate the tone with which she approached this matter, and the intent with which she seeks to amend the Bill. She also heard my comments, and my commitment to listen more closely. There are slight differences—important differences—between terrorism and other crimes: one is a direct attack on the state, and a betrayal of the very protections that the state affords to everyone, whereas other crimes are by their nature of a different nature. That is not an absolute, and I appreciate that that raises different elements, but it is worth noting.
It is also important to remember that we have already instructed parliamentary counsel to prepare a redraft of part of the Bill, to make it narrowly drawn and to capture only those involved in terrorism. I appreciate the points that the hon. Lady made. I would argue that, as I mentioned, courts do not generally consider reducing damages in these cases, and we are not telling them to do so but inviting them to consider doing so. Courts are still independent, and I appreciate her point.
Tom Tugendhat
The point of this House is to indicate opinion as well. I do know two judges, under whose roofs I have lived, and both of them left me in absolutely no doubt as to who takes the decision. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s point.
As I said in my opening speech on the clause, the courts when awarding civil tort damages will only very rarely exercise their right to limit them. That is why we believe it is right to require the courts to consider doing so, even if they then do not do so. I hope that answers the questions at this stage, and I repeat my commitment to engage in further conversation with members of the Committee.
Jess Phillips
Given the Minister’s words and the offer to work together, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 58 to 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Damages at risk of being used for the purposes of terrorism
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 58, in schedule 10, page 140, line 12, leave out
“there is a real risk that”.
This amendment would ensure the court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that damages were to be used for terrorism purposes before frozen funds could be forfeited.
That schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
The Bill contains measures that will enable a Minister to apply freezing and forfeiture orders where they assess that there is a real risk of the damages awarded being used to fund acts of terror. That will be done only at the request of law enforcement or security services, but I am sure that the whole House, and the Committee, will appreciate the importance of avoiding accidentally enabling those acts against us. The measure is designed to meet the Government’s overriding policy objective of protecting the public and society. We believe it is important, fair and proportionate that damages can be frozen at source, at the point of award, where there is a real risk of their being used to support terrorism.
Maria Eagle
Can the Minister tell us whether these provisions have been based on some existing case, or cases, where the Government think this has happened and needs to be stopped, or are they just being made in anticipation of the unlikely circumstances in which damages are used in the way these provision seek to prevent? Are there existing cases the Government are concerned about?
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Lady asks a fair question. This is a plan for the future or rather a concern over the future, rather than provisions based on existing cases. It is the Government, I hope, doing a responsible thing and looking forward, which is, I hope, what we would expect them to do.
Let me give an example. When making their application, the security services will provide evidence of the claimant’s involvement in terrorist activity and relevant associations, together with their risk assessment of the likelihood of the claimant’s using the money to fund terror activities.
Mr Jones
I like the idea of the Government being able to look into the future. We have established that there are no cases so far, so what are the limitations of the existing legislation on the statute books? What is the difference that explains why we need this provision? I ask because I am never in favour of putting on the statute book things that are already covered by an existing freezing order, provisions on proceeds of crime, or anything else.
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Member will know that I am going to write to him about that, because he raises some interesting questions. I will come back to him.
At the freezing stage, the court is looking at essentially the immediate term, given that a freezing order lasts for two years, so the court will want to be satisfied that the claimant’s involvement in terrorism is current and is such that an award of damages is at real risk of being used at once, or within a short timescale, for terrorist purposes. However, the court has the comfort of knowing that the money is only frozen. It may be given to the claimant at a future date if the security services assess the risk as having abated sufficiently, or if the court hearing a later application overturns this.
At the forfeiture stage, the stakes are much higher: the claimant’s award would be permanently withheld. The court knows that the evidence of risk will need to justify that greater intervention. Evidence of entrenchment, of a markedly poor outlook, and that, given their activities, they are always likely to represent a risk will no doubt be uppermost in a court’s mind in a way they may not be for a freezing order. Questions of alternatives to forfeiture such as periodical payments to care providers in order to remove that risk will no doubt also come to the fore. But, where the strength of the evidence cannot be avoided and points to that risk, it is right that the money is forfeited. The court will also be aware that a forfeiture order interferes with property rights under the European convention on human rights and it will need to know that interference is proportionate to the risks, in the context of the need to protect the public.
It is important to note that the Bill does not fetter a court’s discretion in considering whether the risk has been proven. For the finality of the forfeiture application, the court will be able to require the Government to meet the evidentiary burden that it considers to be commensurate to it. The claimant will therefore have a total of three chances to fully challenge in court the evidence that the Government present, before forfeiture can occur. That test does not therefore reflect a low standard; instead, it reflects the right standard.
There are already terrorist freezing provisions, but the process is complicated and the compensation is not frozen at source. As I have said, and to further reassure the Committee, this measure includes provision that a court will have discretion to award part of the damages. This is an equitable measure designed to ensure that a court may award a sum to cover, say, legal expenses or essential care costs in the circumstances of an individual case. We trust our courts and judges to make these assessments while being mindful of the context of public protection. I ask the right hon. Member for Dundee East to withdraw the amendment and I will be communicating with the right hon. Member for North Durham again as well.
Stewart Hosie
I thank the Minister for his remarks on clause 61 and schedule 10. He said that these were about concern for the future. I think we are all concerned about the future. He said that they were designed to tackle something that might happen in the future. I think we all are concerned about ensuring that nothing bad happens in future, but it appears from what the Minister has said that we are measuring risk on a very subjective basis—"real risk” is not a commonly used term.
Let me speak to amendment 58 to schedule 10. The schedule relates to civil proceedings where a Minister can apply to the court to freeze a possible award of damages if the Court is satisfied that there is a real risk of those damages being used for terrorist purposes. That, of course, is lower than the ordinary standard of proof and does not require the claimant to have even been convicted of a criminal offence. It requires only that there is a possibility that they might. Therefore, they will be deprived of any compensation for other matters that they are due. That is a very challenging provision. We clearly understand the policy intent, but what about other moneys than compensatory payments: earnings, pensions, savings, a lottery win or an inheritance? If this is about freezing cash because of a real risk that it may be used for terrorism, why do we need a specific provision for damages legally and properly awarded by a court after full consideration?
Stewart Hosie
My right hon. Friend is right that there is already legislation on terrorist financing. As the Minister pointed out in his opening remarks, there is already a way of freezing terrorist assets, but he said that it was complicated. If we are not just to do things properly and legally but to be seen to be doing them properly, legally and fairly, it may be worth going through those processes to do that.
Schedule 10 proposes, as the Minister said, a freezing order for two years under paragraph (1). Then, an extension is possible for four years under paragraph (2) and, even more drastically, the funds can be forfeited altogether. But the standard of proof in the Bill—the real risk—means no criminal conviction for anything. Even if the court were to think that damages would probably be used for legitimate purposes, but there was a real possibility that they might be used for something else, the damages could be frozen or forfeited entirely.
I can just about live with a general scheme—none of us is naive and none of us wants to see money from any source used to finance terrorism—but, surely, such a drastic step requires actual proof, at least on the balance of probability, that there is a risk of the funds being used for terrorism. That is precisely what the amendment, which removes reference to “real risk”, would achieve.
Jess Phillips
I want to speak to the amendment and to the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood, who is momentarily not in her place, to speak to a case, although the Minister said that the schedule was not based on any particular case.
The right hon. Member for Dundee East asked about other moneys, specifically a lottery win. Why should the schedule be just for damages? What if we thought somebody’s lottery win, for example, was going to be used? That seems outrageous and unlikely, except it happened to me. The only time I have ever had any personal relations with anti-terror police was when they turned up mob-handed to my office, because of threats to my life that I had received from inside a prison. The threats were jihadist in nature and largely about how the person in prison—obviously a risk factor, on the balance of probabilities—was working with people on the outside to kill me and my family. The terror police came and we undertook a case against the man.
It came to pass—through the process of convicting the man, who is now in prison for a term of another 10 years for the crime against me—that the reason why the police had such grave concerns, even though they were not sure whether he was part of a particular network or indeed working with anyone else, was that while on mental health day release, he had won the lottery and had access to quite substantial sums that could have been used in the commission of crimes against me while still in prison.
Mr Jones
I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of the international comparison with the gangster in Boston called Whitey Bulger. He was a notorious gangster whose unexplained wealth was explained by a lottery win, which was outside the jurisdiction of the courts in the United States.
Jess Phillips
That is brilliant. I am in good company with Chicago gangland—
Jess Phillips
With Boston bosses.
One of the risk factors in the case was that issue of a lottery win. There was a certain evidential threshold in the case that was easy to prove in court, because he was threatening to kill me! Please excuse me laughing—one has to laugh at such things, because life becomes ridiculous otherwise.
Why stop with damages? Why should we have a different rule? Nothing could be done in the case that I outlined. I think it is a one in 1.8 million chance of my case happening, so if we have no cases to base it on, I wonder why the focus is on this and not on the case that I outlined.
Mr Jones
The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office employ a wide variety of talents among the individuals whom they recruit, but I did not realise that they actually recruit fortune tellers. That is what we are into here. We have established that there have been no such cases. I am not aware—perhaps the Minister can provide some examples—of why the security services think this is a risk. If that does not exist, this is in the realms of predicting the future, and if there is one thing that we can all agree on—possibly everyone—it is that we cannot predict what happens in the future.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley just said, why only the damages? There is already extensive legislation on the statute books to freeze proceeds of crime and bank accounts if they are to be used for criminal activities. What extra weapons will we give to the courts? I do not see anything that is not there at the moment.
As for using the measure—as opposed to freezing, for example, as I said to the right hon. Member for Dundee East—there is already legislation on the statute book to prevent someone from financing terrorism. In such a situation, what evidence would the Government or the state actually put before the courts? They cannot say simply, “We think he or she might use their proceeds for terrorist activity in future”; it has to be based on intelligence. Again, putting the evidence into court would still expose the state. I presume the existing process would be followed, but it would still mean that we might be putting intelligence in the courts that is not just historical, but actually live, in terms of things such as associations. I just think it is a very clumsy way of trying to proceed. We do not want any money, wherever it comes from, to be used for financing terrorism, but I do not understand where the proposal has come from in the first place. I would be interested if the Minister could find out, because I am also clear that we should not put measures on the statue book unless we have to.
Another point—it is quite amusing in one respect—is the idea that we can decide that an individual who is going to potentially fund terrorism is only going to get half or part of their settlement. I am reassured that the lawyers will be getting their fees, because it would be dreadful if they were having to go to food banks after not getting their pay from a case. However, the Minister then said that care costs and other things would be taken into account. How would the decision be made? Using care costs as an example, if a person gets a certain amount in damages, they might need them for a few years to come if their care costs are ongoing. So, we could not really cap where that is going to go, and that affects the individual’s ability to claim on the state for their care costs. This is a mess. It is one of the examples in the Bill where the odd thing is just thrown in that is not needed. If the Minister could demonstrate to me why this is so important to include in the Bill, I would back him 100%. However, I think that the measure is clumsy, that it will never be used, and that it will damage the reputation of this Bill, which some people have done a good enough job of doing as it is. The Minister certainly will not accept the amendment, but this is another issue that he might want to cogitate on, and decide whether it is worth the candle.
Tom Tugendhat
I welcome Committee members’ comments. I notice that Occam has many cousins in this place, and that his razor is very sharp. On that basis, I merely mention that the issue is with not just damages payments, but the enormous resource currently used in fighting such claims.
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Member and I will delight in having a conversation about this when I have written to him.
The reality is that this is looking at an identifiable risk, which is from court proceedings, rather than an unidentifiable risk, which is lottery winnings. I have put that on record and we will no doubt discuss this later. It is also worth making the case that the courts are experienced in calculating case costs and ongoing costs. I will leave it there.
Stewart Hosie
I am not sure that we are particularly enlightened by the Government’s response. I must say I share the scepticism of the right hon. Member for North Durham. How many times are the Government going to have to spend huge amounts of money to fight against somebody who has been awarded some damages on the grounds that they may then wish to use those damages to support terrorism? I am not dreadfully convinced by that argument.
I will not press the amendment, but given we are into the sphere of crystal balls, subjectivity and a judicial threshold that is far too low for this action, I would not be at all surprised if a similar amendment to this one sees the light of day at a later stage of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 62
Legal aid for individuals convicted of terrorism offences
Jess Phillips
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 62, page 44, line 21, leave out “F” and insert “G”.
This amendment is a paving amendment for Amendment 60.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 60, in clause 62, page 45, line 3, at end insert—
“(7A) Condition G is met where the offender is seeking legal aid for the purposes of—
(a) pursuing a civil order, where the purpose of the order is to protect a victim of domestic abuse, or
(b) participating in family court proceedings, and where the offender is a victim of domestic abuse.”
Amendment 62, in clause 62, page 45, line 42, at end insert—
““domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;”
This amendment provides a definition of “domestic abuse” for the purposes of Amendment 60.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 63 and 64 stand part.
Jess Phillips
The second element of part 3 of the Bill would prevent people with terrorism convictions from receiving civil legal aid—it is important to stress that it is civil, not criminal. Again, the breadth and consequences of such a broad-brush approach cause me some alarm. Our amendments would address some of those concerns.
Once again, I am looking at the issue through a gendered lens and considering the impact on domestic abuse victims and their children, who are directly referred to in my amendments—amendment 62 refers to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham commented about things being dropped and changed in Committee and during Commons stages, and the passage of the 2021 Act was a good example of where that was done completely and utterly. Obviously, I still think that more things should have been included in that legislation, but what we sent to the other place was the work of everybody in Committee. My amendment 62 draws directly on the definition of domestic abuse contained in that Act.
The clause suggests that restrictions disallowing offenders from accessing civil legal aid will last for 30 years for adult offenders and 15 years for youth offenders, and will apply to any person convicted, irrelevant of the severity of the crime or the sentence imposed for the offence. Those restrictions apply to terrorists who commit the most heinous of mass murders, and also to those who participate in crimes that receive non-custodial sentences, such as encouraging terrorism, disseminating publications or downloading terror manuals. It is an automatic restriction—a court has no discretion to apply or revoke it in any circumstances. The restrictions do not require that the seeking of legal aid be related to the terrorist conviction of the claimant, or specify what the purpose of the civil proceedings might be. It is a blanket restriction covering any civil proceedings; it could be absolutely anything in the civil courts.
The disproportionate and oppressive nature of the drafting becomes stark when we place it in the context of the types of civil cases that legal aid can be needed for. People find themselves in civil proceedings and family court proceedings, and in need of legal aid support, for a multitude of reasons, with housing issues, debt problems and domestic abuse being just a few examples. It is a realm that not everyone may know much about, but anyone who has worked in domestic abuse for as long as I have realises the role that civil and family cases, and the courts, play in people’s lives and their ability to live in the free and safe society that the Government have claimed that they are trying to protect all the way throughout our consideration of the Bill.
For example, a victim of domestic abuse might need legal aid to help her to seek an injunction against her abuser. Non-molestation orders protect a victim or their child from being harmed or threatened by their abuser, while occupation orders decide who can live in a family home or enter the surrounding area. Such injunctions protect victims and children in particular. They protect women. They save women’s lives—huge improvements are needed in how they are served and upheld, but that is not an argument for today. Funnily enough, I noticed on BBC News today that the Government were heralding some of the changes in domestic violence protection orders in cases of domestic abuse, which are usually handed out in a civil environment, and how they were helping to prevent domestic abuse. That was this morning’s news. These injunctions are not some unnecessary add-on or bonus; they are legal measures that protect women from violence and are crucial for the type of society we desire to build and protect.
Jess Phillips
I am not sure he would agree with the Minister on many other things, but maybe we will get the two of you together. I am sorry to slag off my husband in here—although, actually, it is the perfect place, as he cannot do anything about it, can he?
This is incredibly naive. The reality is that anyone who has worked with female offenders, as I have for many years—this is why we ran their services out of Women’s Aid—recognises that the pathway to offending for the vast majority of women offenders is an abusive man.
So, yes, “Don’t be a terrorist,” is a great thing to say if your abuser is a terrorist. It is very easy to say that when the person who has complete and utter control over your every waking minute is also involved in something you do not necessarily agree with. For example, say that you made a phone call on his behalf. It is easy for everybody to sit and say, “I wouldn’t do that, because I am not a terrorist,” but we all might if we were terrorised. The fundamental thing we should all seek is to prevent that, and to prevent the idea that somebody might then fall into terrorism. The actions in the Bill mean it is much more likely that women in these cases will end up stuck with a terrorist making them be a terrorist, rather than being able to escape them.
There is a broader point to highlight about the connection between domestic abuse and terrorism, because of how commonly terrorists are also abusers in a domestic setting, and also because of female offender patterns, which I have already alluded to. Research carried out by the Home Office in 2021 showed more than a third of suspected extremists referred to the Government’s anti-radicalisation programme Prevent had experienced domestic violence. The police said that of 3,045 people referred to the scheme in 2019, 1,076 had a link to domestic abuse as an offender, victim or both. The male referrals were more likely to be offenders; the female referrals were more likely to be victims. As the national co-ordinator for Prevent, Detective Chief Superintendent Vicky Washington, said:
“This initial research has resulted in some statistically significant data which cannot, and should not, be ignored. Project Starlight has indicated a clear overrepresentation of domestic abuse experiences in the lives of those who are referred to us for safeguarding and support. It is absolutely vital that we use this information to shape what we do, and strengthen our response across all of policing, not just in counter terrorism.”
In short, tackling domestic abuse is critical to tackling terrorism. Any legislation, such as the current draft of this Bill, that undermines our ability to protect domestic abuse victims and stop domestic abuse perpetrators does nothing for the security of our country. Our amendments seek to address the breadth of the current drafting, and to tackle the issues and protect victims of domestic abuse.
I have two further points. Many people have raised concerns about the removal of legal aid. They argue that these clauses are counterproductive in protecting the public, due to the impact of effective rehabilitation. I have a deep concern for individuals who, years after a conviction and successful rehabilitation, find themselves in difficulty, facing homelessness, or are victims of abuse, or are in debt. Okay, if someone has been convicted of something to do with terrorism, they get what they deserve, but there are people working for organisations such as HOPE not hate who have completed rehabilitation pathways and who have then been used to protect the lives of people who work in this building, lest we forget. I have real worries that the blanket provision in the Bill over people who may very well have been rehabilitated could well stop them being able to get the support they might need to continue to be productive members of society. Does it help the rehabilitation, or does it create an environment where a person may make bad choices and cause harm?
As Jonathan Hall argued in the evidence session,
“I have certainly come across cases where the terrorist risk from the individual—the chance of their stabbing someone, for example—goes up if they are not taking their medication or if they are homeless.
My concern about the legal aid is that it will make it harder, for example, for a terrorist offender, maybe 10 years after they have been released and who is facing eviction, to get legal aid. That means that you might have less good decisions made…My real concern is people becoming homeless or falling into debt when they might otherwise be able to get legal assistance.”––[Official Report, National Security Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2022; c. 11, Q19.]
If our primary driver is to protect the public and reduce risk, we must consider that point. The breadth of the Bill could undermine the very thing that it is trying to protect: a society where people do not live in fear of violence and danger.
Mr Jones
The media’s portrayal of legal aid is of giving out huge sums of money to the undeserving and those who are guilty of crimes, but we should start from the basis, as I always do, that people are innocent until proven guilty. The other motive for the Bill is clearly to get some headlines that say, “We are being tough on terrorists.” I will come on to some examples, especially the issue of under-18s, but the Bill does nothing of the sort.
There is also a more fundamental point: if someone is accused of a crime, we want to ensure that the facts are put before the court and that they are properly legally represented so that they can argue their case, and the Crown can argue its case against that evidence. At the end of the day, it is then up to the jury and the courts to decide whether that person is innocent or guilty, and the courts then decide on sentencing. That process is not just some woolly notion of a justice system that this country is proud of; it is actually fundamental to the victims. It is important that the victims of terrorism, or any crime, are assured that a person who is guilty is sentenced and gets the appropriate punishment.
When we talk about terrorists, we are talking about the appalling individuals who perpetrated the Manchester bombing or the London atrocities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley has just said, that is not the spectrum we are talking about here, as the Bill sets a broader one.
I suggest people read the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on extreme right-wing terrorism. In taking evidence for that, the most disturbing fact was that the people who are now being drawn to extreme right-wing terrorism are youngsters, some as young as 14 or 15. It is mainly online, but they are committing offences. There are quite a few—some have been reported publicly—who have been, rightly, imprisoned because they have met the threshold for the court to decide that they committed an offence.
Suppose a 15-year-old is found guilty of a terrorism offence. We are saying that, for the next 15 years, whatever they do—whether another terrorist-related incident or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley said, a criminal case or a civil case such as eviction—they will be barred from access to legal aid. I might be unpopular for saying this, but legal aid helps the system of justice. The idea that it is doled out willy-nilly to everyone is absolute nonsense: it is hard to meet the thresholds that have been introduced over the last few years. Those thresholds have gone too far, because they are basically a tax on justice for a lot of innocent people. I do not understand where that comes from.
I come back to the point about youngsters and rehabilitation that my hon. Friend made. It is possible that there is a perception that there is an average terrorist. We know what a terrorist is: someone who carries out horrific bombings or activities. However, that is not the case with some of the other thresholds for terrorism offences. For some youngster—a 15-year-old, or someone even a bit older—who has been imprisoned for that type of terrorism, our aim surely is to work with them to get them out of that pathway. The legal aid measures will do nothing at all to help that rehabilitation process. I am sure that many people in the room made decisions when they were 15 that they would perhaps regret now. I am sure that the Minister was a perfect child, but people make mistakes, and they hold views that 15 years later they will not hold. The idea that we penalise those people for life is unacceptable.
The measures have been parachuted into the Bill, and I would like to know the rationale for including them in the Bill. They will not make the process very easy for the Crown, either. If someone cannot get legal aid, what are they going to do? Represent themselves? All that does is make the trial very expensive and not a good process for the victims who are watching.
The broader issue is that there are many people whom we—and, I am sure, the tabloids and others—do not like. We do not like murderers, paedophiles or rapists. If we apply the measures to terrorists, why not extend them to the other people we do not like? I am not proposing that we should. If we did, that is fine: the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) might think that he will get a newspaper headline for being tough on terrorism. But it would make the situation worse. It would slow down the legal process; it would victimise people for many years. What we should be doing with those youngsters is working with them to try to get them away from some of the sick ideologies outlined in the right-wing extremism report from the ISC. We should get them back into society. Look at some of the best examples around the world of rehabilitation of terrorists or extremists—it is about rehabilitation, not punishment.
If someone has carried out an horrific terrorist attack and killed people, I am happy for them to stay in prison for the rest of their lives. I have no problem with that. However, there are those who are on the verge of doing that. It is worse these days because of the internet and social media, which is slowly corrupting some young minds; it leads them to hold ideologies and, in some cases, take steps that cause them to meet that terrorist threshold.
Tom Tugendhat
I appreciate enormously what right hon. and hon. Members opposite have said. As I have been familiarising myself with the detail of this Bill, I will be asking questions and engaging in conversation with colleagues from all parts of the House. I will absolutely be engaging with Opposition colleagues.
I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate it if I cover the clauses as they stand. Clause 62 will narrow the range of circumstances in which individuals convicted of specified terrorism offences can receive civil legal services. That includes individuals convicted of terrorism offences listed under schedule A1 to the Sentencing Code, where there is a minimum penalty of imprisonment for two years or more, as well as for offences where a judge has found a terrorism connection.
The restriction will apply to future applications for legal aid for individuals convicted of terrorism or terrorism-connected offences from 2001 onwards. The restriction will not affect ongoing cases.
Tom Tugendhat
My understanding will be clarified in a letter to the right hon. Gentleman very shortly, unless it is clarified in the moments to come.
Tom Tugendhat
I am assured that it is retrospective. I will, of course, be looking at this as part of the whole. [Interruption.] It is retrospective to 2001 for past offences. I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman on that.
The effect of the restriction is a suspension on accessing civil legal aid from the date of conviction. The restriction will last for 30 years for individuals convicted when aged 18 years old or over, and 15 years for individuals convicted when under 18. The restriction will not apply to individuals under 18 years old, but will take effect when they turn 18 and make a new application for civil legal aid.
As the clause is drafted, access to the exceptional case funding scheme will remain available for those subject to the restriction who can demonstrate that, without legal aid, there is a risk of a breach of their ECHR rights or their retained enforceable EU law rights. Applications for exceptional case funding are generally subject to means and merits tests.
Clause 63 ensures that—
Mr Jones
In effect, this measure is going to be useless, isn’t it? I would think that if, for example, someone with no means is subject to one of these orders, it would not take a great legal genius to argue in a court that it infringed their rights to a fair trial. Is it not therefore the case that, in most cases, they will get special legal aid anyway? It is a bit odd to implement a thing that might sound tough but, in practice, will end up with people getting legal aid anyway.
Tom Tugendhat
Occam is making his case. The right hon. Gentleman will be assured that I will respond in full, and in kind, as soon as we have had the opportunity to have this discussion among a slightly wider party of colleagues.
Clause 63 ensures that the correct data-sharing and data-processing powers are available to enforce the restriction on access to civil legal aid for those convicted of specified terrorism offences. To enforce the restriction effectively, we must be able to check that an individual has a relevant conviction that would prevent them from accessing funding. To do this, a legal gateway must exist within the legislation to use conviction data for the purposes of administering legal aid. The clause will allow the details of an individual’s conviction status to be requested from the director of legal aid casework and shared from a competent authority that holds the criminal conviction data. This data can be used only for the purpose of identifying whether an applicant for legal aid has been convicted of a specified terrorism offence, in order to determine whether the restriction will apply. Such information may include an individual’s name and date of birth, and the dates of any convictions.
Jess Phillips
The Minister has described the process, which, as with all Government processes, always works smoothly. Will they have to do that check on every single person who applies for legal aid?
Jess Phillips
It is going to be quite a slow process. The suggestion is that, for every single person who applies for legal aid in any civil remedy or order, we will start writing to a competent authority to get any previous terrorism convictions.
Tom Tugendhat
I will clarify the process for the hon. Lady. It is not that unreasonable, frankly—
Tom Tugendhat
Hang on a minute. It is not that unreasonable to check with competent authorities before various provisions are made. It is pretty standard, and this measure is another check. I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, and I will come back to her with how this is done and how it is followed up.
Finally, clause 64 makes a minor amendment to clarify how civil legal aid is available for terrorism prevention and investigation measures proceedings. I want to make it clear that the clause will not change that fact. The clause seeks to reduce unnecessary complexity in the administration of the legal aid scheme, and it will ensure that all legal aid decisions for TPIMs are made under one paragraph of the statutory framework, rather than being funded under multiple paragraphs. The clause will also remove references to “control orders” in the legal aid legislation; control orders were the predecessors to TPIMs and have now been phased out.
Tom Tugendhat
I see the right hon. Gentleman’s point. We are going to move on, because he knows that we will be talking about this later.
I thank both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley for tabling their amendments, which seek to carve out an exception from the restriction where the case type involves domestic abuse. I recognise the strength of voice that the hon. Lady has brought to the scourge of domestic violence, and the voice that she has given to so many victims in the House. It is an enormous tribute to her that she is recognised around the country for it, and I certainly listen to her very carefully on this issue. I reassure her that I will be looking at not just the provisions in the clause but the amendment she has tabled. I will also be looking at the exceptional case funding scheme, and I will be discussing it. It is certainly true at the moment that 74% of applications to the ECF are granted, but she has already made the point that there is a hurdle before approaching the 74%. I accept that, and I will be looking at it. I will be taking it seriously. I ask her to withdraw the amendment ahead of future conversations.
Jess Phillips
I appreciate the tone that the Minister has taken, and I will withdraw the amendment with a view to see where we get before Report and Third Reading. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 63 and 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65
Minor and consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 39 to 44.
That schedule 11 be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.
Clause 66 stand part.
Government amendment 64, in clause 67, page 48, line 25, at end insert—
“(za) regulations under section (Requirement to register foreign activity arrangements);
(zb) regulations under section (Meaning of ‘political influence activity’);
(zc) regulations under section (General exemptions);”
This amendment provides that regulations made under the specified provisions are to be made using the affirmative procedure.
Amendment (a) to Government amendment 64, line 4, at end insert—
“(zd) regulations under section (Registration information);
(ze) regulations under section (Information notices);”
Government amendment 65.
Clauses 67 to 73 stand part.
Tom Tugendhat
Clause 65 introduces schedule 11, which makes minor and consequential amendments to other legislation. I will not dwell on paragraphs 1 to 3, which repeal the Official Secrets Acts 1911, 1920 and 1939, and which are no longer needed in the light of the Bill. I am aware that the Committee has already touched on paragraphs 4, 5, 7 and 8 when discussing the powers of arrest, detention and biometrics.
I will briefly speak about paragraph 6, which makes a necessary consequential amendment to the Official Secrets Act 1989. The 1989 Act already, and quite rightly, provides that it is an offence under the Act to make an onward disclosure of material obtained through an offence under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 —that is, espionage. The Bill replaces the reference to the 1911 Act provision, which has been repealed, with the relevant provisions in the Bill, which are designed to criminalise the same conduct. Other references to the 1911 and 1920 Acts have also been replaced with the relevant provisions in the Bill.
Turning to the Government amendments, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 contains a list of offences, referred to as “qualifying offences”, whereby when a person is arrested but not convicted of such an offence police have the option to retain biometric data such as fingerprints for three years. Qualifying offences currently include terrorism offences, murder, rape and kidnap. Schedule 11 of the Bill already amends the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to include the most serious offences in the Bill, such as obtaining or disclosing protected information and sabotage, in the list of qualifying offences, which also includes attempts or conspiracy to commit those offences.
Schedule 11 amends PACE to insert the most serious offences in the Bill under the heading of “National security-related qualifying offences”. Amendments 39 to 44 seek to add the offence of preparatory conduct in clause 15 to the list of qualifying offences, as well as to the definition of national security-related qualifying offences. As we have already discussed in Committee, malign actions by states have the potential to cause significant damage to the United Kingdom and its interests, and the preparatory conduct offence ensures that law enforcement can intervene at an early stage when preparatory activities are under way. I ask the Committee to support all the amendments.
Clause 66 provides a mechanism for the Secretary of State to make, via regulations, additional consequential amendments to other legislation where necessary. That will ensure that the legislative framework remains coherent. Clause 67 makes provision in relation to the powers to make regulations in the Bill, including specifying the parliamentary procedure applicable to specific provisions. The powers that, when exercised, will require regulations made under them to be subject to the affirmative procedure are specified in paragraph 6. These are regulations that make consequential amendments to primary legislation, and that require the use of, and bring into force, a code of practice on making video recordings of interviews of detained suspects under schedule 3.
Government amendments 64 and 65 are technical amendments relating to the foreign influence registration scheme. While I will briefly set out the practical effect of the amendments, I am mindful that the next Committee sitting will consider the substantive amendments—so we will touch on them then in greater detail—and the new clauses relating to the scheme. I therefore do not intend to cover the substance at this point.
Government amendment 64 provides that three powers to make regulations under the foreign influence registration scheme are to be subject to the affirmative procedure. The first is where a foreign power, part of a foreign power, or an entity subject to foreign power, is to be specified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of enhanced registration requirements. The second is where the Secretary of State wishes to make provision for further cases, in addition to several proposed exemptions, to which the registration requirements or prohibitions do not apply. The final power is where the Secretary of State wishes to specify a person exercising functions on behalf of the Crown for the purpose of extending provisions relating to registerable political influence activities to capture communications made to that person.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive run-through of the different elements within this part 4 grouping. I will speak to the collection of clauses and amendments, which encompass the remaining provisions in part 4. Clauses 65 and 66 give powers to the Government to consequentially amend legislation based on the content of the Bill. We spoke to the House of Commons Library in order to assure ourselves that this was a conventional allocation of powers, and did not go beyond what was necessary. I am grateful to the Library staff for their feedback.
Government amendment 64 provides that regulations made under the specified provisions for the foreign influence registration scheme, which we have not yet got to, are to be made using the affirmative procedure. It seems an odd arrangement that we are debating the process for the regulations without having first considered in detail the substance of those provisions. However, here we are. We will come to the FIRS provisions; despite how long the scheme has been in the pipeline, it is fair to say that a great deal of the detail of those measures is still to be determined—and is yet to be determined in regulation. It is right that they are subject to the affirmative procedure and to proper scrutiny when that detail has been worked through. We hear and understand that it may take some time yet, but it is an important point.
Further to Government amendment 64, there are two more provisions for regulations on registration information and information notices, which merit the same approach for the reasons I have just outlined. Our amendment to Government amendment 64 seeks to extend it only to ensure a consistent level of scrutiny of what will be serious new measures. It would allow the measures to be considered by hon. Members in Committee and would ensure that they deliver what is needed. On that basis, I ask the Minister to adopt our small, but entirely appropriate, change to Government amendment 64.
Tom Tugendhat
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s point. I want to correct a comment that I made. I said the provisions apply to the Crown and this meant that Crown servants could not commit the offences. What I meant was they can commit the offences in the Bill, and that is the whole point of the regulation and this change to allow the freedom that is required.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11
Minor and consequential amendments
Amendments made: 39, in schedule 11, page 141, line 29, after “offence” insert “under section 15 of the National Security Act 2022 or”.
This amendment inserts a reference to offences under clause 15 (preparatory conduct) into the definition of “national security-related qualifying offence”.
Amendment 40, in schedule 11, page 141, line 30, leave out
“the National Security Act 2022”
and insert “that Act”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 39.
Amendment 41, in schedule 11, page 142, line 8, after “offence” insert
“under section 15 of the National Security Act 2022 or”.
This amendment inserts a reference to offences under clause 15 (preparatory conduct) into the definition of “qualifying offence”.
Amendment 42, in schedule 11, page 142, line 8, leave out
“the National Security Act 2022”
and insert “that Act”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 41.
Amendment 43, in schedule 11, page 142, line 15, after “offence” insert
“under section 15 of the National Security Act 2022 or”.
This amendment inserts a reference to offences under clause 15 (preparatory conduct) into the definition of “qualifying offence”.
Amendment 44, in schedule 11, page 142, line 15, leave out
“the National Security Act 2022”
and insert “that Act”.—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 43.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67
Regulations
The Chair
Does the hon. Member for Halifax wish to move amendment (a) to Government amendment 64?
Holly Lynch
I will continue to engage with the Government on that issue, but I will not move the amendment.
Amendments made: 64, in clause 67, page 48, line 25, at end insert—
“(za) regulations under section (Requirement to register foreign activity arrangements);
(zb) regulations under section (Meaning of “political influence activity”);
(zc) regulations under section (General exemptions);”
This amendment provides that regulations made under the specified provisions are to be made using the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 65, in clause 67, page 49, line 2, at end insert—
“(11) If a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under section (Requirement to register foreign activity arrangements) would, apart from this subsection, be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This amendment provides that regulations under NC11 are not to be treated as hybrid instruments.
Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 68 to 73 ordered the stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 7
Obtaining etc material benefits from a foreign intelligence service
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person—
(i) obtains, accepts or retains a material benefit which is not an excluded benefit, or
(ii) obtains or accepts the provision of such a benefit to another person,
(b) the benefit is or was provided by or on behalf of a foreign intelligence service, and
(c) the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the benefit is or was provided by or on behalf of a foreign intelligence service.
(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person agrees to accept—
(i) a material benefit which is not an excluded benefit, or
(ii) the provision of such a benefit to another person,
(b) the benefit is to be provided by or on behalf of a foreign intelligence service, and
(c) the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the benefit is to be provided by or on behalf of a foreign intelligence service.
(3) Material benefits may include financial benefits, anything which has the potential to result in a financial benefit, and information.
(4) A material benefit is an excluded benefit if—
(a) it is provided as reasonable consideration for the provision of goods or services, and
(b) the provision of those goods or services does not constitute an offence.
(5) A benefit may be provided by or on behalf of a foreign intelligence service directly or indirectly (for example, it may be provided indirectly through one or more companies).
(6) Subsections (1) and (2) apply to conduct outside the United Kingdom, but apply to conduct taking place wholly outside the United Kingdom only if—
(a) the material benefit is or was, or is to be, provided in or from the United Kingdom, or
(b) in any case, the person engaging in the conduct—
(i) is a UK person, or
(ii) acts for or on behalf of, or holds office under, the Crown, or is in Crown employment (whether or not they engage in the conduct in that capacity).
(7) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) by virtue of retaining a benefit, it is a defence to show that the person had a reasonable excuse for retaining the benefit.
(8) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) it is a defence to show that the person engaged in the conduct in question—
(a) in compliance with a legal obligation under the law of the United Kingdom,
(b) in the case of a person having functions of a public nature under the law of the United Kingdom, for the purposes of those functions, or
(c) in accordance with an agreement or arrangement to which—
(i) the United Kingdom was a party, or
(ii) any person acting for or on behalf of, or holding office under, the Crown was (in that capacity) a party.
(9) A person is taken to have shown a matter mentioned in subsection (7) or (8) if—
(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and
(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(10) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both).
(11) A person who commits an offence under subsection (2) is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine (or both).
(12) The following terms have the same meaning as in section 3—
“financial benefit”;
“foreign intelligence service”;
the “law of the United Kingdom”;
“UK person”.”
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause contains two offences concerned with obtaining, accepting, agreeing to accept or retaining a material benefit from a foreign intelligence service. These offences add to the new toolkit for law enforcement and the intelligence agencies in responding to espionage activity.
FIS operations in the UK run contrary to our safety and interests. In order to operate successfully, a FIS needs to recruit, fund and support networks of agents to support their undeclared activity in the United Kingdom. One of the most important motivating factors that a FIS is able to deploy to recruit agents is financial inducement or the provision of benefits in kind. It is often the case—this is reflective of the tradecraft of such organisations—that only the money or other material benefits can be evidenced to a satisfactory criminal standard. The new offence will enable early intervention to prevent further harm from being caused and will further strengthen our ability to prevent FIS activity, building on clause 3.
The first offence, in subsection (1), concerns a person who obtains or accepts a material benefit for themselves or another person, or who retains a material benefit, from a FIS. That could involve obtaining or accepting legal or school fees intended for someone else’s benefit. Some benefits are excluded benefits, which I will come on to in a moment. That offence would attract a maximum penalty of 40 years.
The second offence, in subsection (2), concerns a person who agrees to accept a material benefit from a FIS for themselves or another person, which is not an excluded benefit. This offence, where no benefit is obtained, accepted or retained, would attract a maximum penalty of 10 years. For both offences, the benefit must also be provided by or on behalf of a FIS, and the person must know, or ought reasonably to know, that the benefit came from a FIS.
We must be alive to the tradecraft of foreign intelligence services and their ability to adapt and potentially overcome any narrow definitions in this area. Accordingly, we have drawn the meaning of “material benefit” wider than just financial benefit. Material benefit will include money and money’s worth, such as gifts. It will also capture wider benefits such as information, including information on a business arrangement, as well as anything that has the potential to result in a financial benefit. We have safeguards in place to ensure that legitimate activity is not brought into scope of the new clause.
Subsection (8) replicates the defences in clause 3, which means that a person does not commit an offence if they are complying with a legal obligation, conducting public functions or acting in accordance with an agreement to which the UK is a party. As with other offences in the Bill, Attorney General consent must be obtained before prosecution.
In addition to those protections, the new offences have an additional layer of protection in the form of the excluded benefit for those who have legitimate reason for receiving a material benefit—for example, because they provide services to diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom that are known to accommodate declared intelligence officers.
Under subsection (4), a benefit is an excluded benefit if it is provided as reasonable consideration for the provision of goods or services and the provision of goods and services does not constitute an offence. For example, a shopkeeper does not commit an offence by selling groceries to a person who happens to be a member of a FIS. Another example of the type of contact that is excluded through this exemption is a person who lives in Northern Ireland and works in the Republic of Ireland for the police force.
The effect of introducing the concept of an excluded benefit will mean that in cases where someone is believed to have committed an offence of obtaining a material benefit, the prosecution would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the benefit was not an excluded benefit.
In addition to the concept of an excluded benefit, we have made provision for a reasonable excuse defence in subsection (7), which relates only to the offence of retaining a benefit contrary to subsection (1). This has been done to allow people who, for example, may be unable to return a benefit and so are forced to retain it. It will also enable law enforcement and the intelligence agencies to target those people who do not have a legitimate reason for retaining such a benefit. Although, crucially, subsections (4), (7) and (8) allow us to take a wide range of legitimate activity out of scope, we have been careful to ensure that the offence captures all types of activity we are concerned about.
The definition of a FIS would include a police force or other body with intelligence functions, which is the same definition found in clause 3. As I said when I introduced that clause to the Committee, we have drawn it in that way because it is increasingly common for organisations and foreign Government agencies to undertake activity more traditionally associated with intelligence services.
Holly Lynch
Before I turn to the detail of new clause 7, I appreciate that the Minister is not responsible for some of these challenges, but throughout the process of the Bill there has been a great deal of support for seeing the detail of the legislation scheme that makes up the basis of most of these new Government clauses. We probed consistently and asked that we could see the detail of that as soon as possible, given that as we came into the presentation of the legislation prior to Second Reading, it was a key factor that the Government promised would be a component part of the Bill.
The Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Stevenage, made a commitment that that would be added to the Bill before we returned from recess for the second Committee sittings of line-by-line scrutiny. Most of the Government new clauses were tabled just last week—I think they were tabled last Tuesday and published on Wednesday. In that sense, his predecessor upheld that commitment in principle but not in spirit.
The new clauses were tabled only last week and there is a great deal in them to get through. We certainly want to support these provisions, but there is a lot to interpret and understand, and we want to have the opportunity to engage with those who can make use of these provisions so that we can do our due diligence at this point. I am not being unreasonable and I am being kinder to the Minister than the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), was to the Minister’s predecessor’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), on Second Reading, but I want to put it on record that we may be forced to return to the Committee with more detail once we have had the opportunity to consider these provisions further.
Turning to the detail, as the Minister has said, Government new clause 7 creates new offences of obtaining, accepting, retaining and agreeing to accept a material benefit from a foreign intelligence service. The clause is explicit in referencing material benefits from a “foreign intelligence service”. In relatively recent instances finances have been traced back, not to intelligence agencies as such but to forms of Government Departments, such as the United Front Work Department, referred to by the Chinese Communist Party as one of its “magic weapons”. Are the definitions in this clause too narrow to capture those kinds of transactions?
Subsection (7) says:
“In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) by virtue of retaining a benefit, it is a defence to show that the person had a reasonable excuse for retaining the benefit.”
Given just how tight the definitions in relation to this offence are as the Bill stands, referring exclusively to a foreign intelligence service, I am keen to understand what might constitute a “reasonable excuse” in that situation.
We have worked through the notion of and the thresholds of proof around the phrase “ought reasonably to know” in earlier proceedings of this Committee, which I appreciate the new Minister might not yet be across. In subsections (10) and (11), pretty serious custodial sentences are outlined, as the Minister said, for committing offences under subsections (1) and (2). So I would be grateful to learn what the fines would be for those offences.
A query was also put to me following a specific overseas case as to whether someone who is in receipt of benefits of a sexual nature could be prosecuted under this new clause. If someone were to offer sex in exchange for information in such a way that it could be proven that they knew or ought reasonably to have known the purpose of that activity, could that lead to a prosecution on the basis of the sex being a material benefit, in principle, under the Government’s new clause?
Mr Jones
I broadly welcome the new clause, because it is obviously another weapon in the armoury to counter foreign state interference, but I just want some clarification to be made in terms of the broad nature of what is actually being proposed.
One of the examples that I want to raise is the issue of academia. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax has already said, the United Front Workers Department of the Chinese Communist party is active across the globe and influencing academics and even legislators here in this country and in other countries, for example, Australia. So I just want some clarification about how someone would get caught under this measure.
As I say, one example is academia. I cannot remember who—I was trying to rack my brains to think of the name of the academic at Harvard University who I think is currently being prosecuted in the United States. It relates to the definition of “intelligence service”. We know that the Chinese Communist party does not work directly; it will work through front organisations. As I say, I am trying to think of the name of the academic in the US; it will come back to me in a minute.
However, let us suppose a British academic is approached by an entity in China or an individual based here, who then says to that academic, “Will you do some academic research? Will you write a paper for us?” And they give the academic money for that. There are examples of this happening, and I think that in the example from the United States, which is currently ongoing, the academic then received a retainer for providing research information for a Chinese university. I think there is evidence that suggests that that was a way in which the Chinese Communist party or the Chinese security services were funnelling money to academics.
I would be really interested to know how we will differentiate between the academic who quite clearly wants to do research, and co-operation with China. The benefit they get—for example, being paid for a visit to a conference, for an academic paper or for research—does not fall within the scope of this measure, because, to be fair to the academic, the source of the funding might not be clear—it might be clear in some cases, but not in all.
I can understand if, for example, the security services approach an academic and say, “Are you aware that your money for your paper is coming from x intelligence agency?”, and the academic says, “Oh well, I’m not bothered. I’ll keep on doing it.” That is fine. However I just want to know—and I think some guidance has to be given to academics.
The other example is a bit closer to home, which is my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), who received large amounts of money from a woman called Christine Lee. She made quite a substantial donation for him to run his office. I am still baffled as to the reason why, but still. It was proven later that that she was working on behalf of the Chinese Communist party and the Chinese Government. Would an individual like that—a Member of Parliament—be dragged into this, under the new clause?
Certainly, I am sure that most of us, if someone offered us half a million pounds, would actually want to know why we were getting it, but people make their own decisions. Would that be classed under this? There are clear examples of the Chinese in particular using academia as a cover for intelligence gathering and actually funding things that will obviously influence, such as stealing academic research. For example, if a paper is normally worth £1,000 and someone is getting £20,000 for it, does that mean that the rest is a bung and that they should really raise questions about it? I doubt many academics are going to be saying, “I am not worth £20,000”. It comes back to the point on this, which I would like some more information on. I am not against what is being proposed, but I think that it has some issues that will raise alarm bells in certain sections, and academia is certainly one of them.
Tom Tugendhat
I will pick up on the second set of points first, if the hon. Member for Halifax does not mind. I will pick up on those points because I am glad that it is not just me who is baffled at what the United Front thought it was gaining from this relationship. I think we are all equally mystified, but it appears that they had the resources not to care.
It does suggest, however, that we have to take this extremely seriously in all of our duties—not just when we talk about people outside this place, but when we talk about people inside this place because we have a particular responsibility to the service of our country and our communities. So I think that this needs to be looked at extremely carefully. I am not going to go into individual cases for various reasons, except to express surprise.
Mr Jones
It is wider than just that one case because, when the ISC did its Russia report, there was clear evidence of certain Members of the House of Lords, for example, being given posts as consultants and other things. Whether there is any proof that they were actually given by the intelligence services, I do not know, but it has certainly, in some cases, raised certain questions that ought to be asked.
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are certain individuals in our society—some of whom, sadly, have seats in this Parliament—whose actions are questionable and demand further investigation. He can be absolutely assured that that is something that I take extremely seriously. He knows that I drafted a policy paper a long time ago on updating our Terrorism Acts. This debate is not about that, but there are various reasons why I took that seriously so many years ago and why I am very pleased to be doing this job. I accepted this job from the Prime Minister because this is a matter that I think is of enormous importance in the United Kingdom, particularly today. I will not go into the details of it, but he can be absolutely assured that I will be looking at it as soon as I have got my feet a little bit further under the desk, if he will forgive me.
These provisions, of course, do apply in various different ways, and he has highlighted some of the ways in which foreign intelligence services pay agents. Disproportionate or excessive payments can be considered in different ways, such as bribery. While the individual in question may of course claim that they were worth what they were paid, I think a reasonable benchmarking process would normally establish that they were, at best, surprised, if not actually encouraging the situation, which was not conducive to the safety of our country.
I am not, as I have said, going to go through individual cases, but this entire new clause refers to benefits in various different ways, such as to a benefit received through a business; it does not have to be direct. I am going to have to come back to the hon. Member for Halifax on her question about the nature of sexual inducements. I cannot answer that question now, but I will come back to her.
Mr Jones
I accept that the Minister has done a lot of work in this area. Would it be possible for Committee members to be briefed on the reason for this provision, but also how it will act in practice because, once it is implemented, guidance is going to have to be given to companies and to academia? I think just getting some understanding of how it would work in practice would reassure many of us in Opposition.
Tom Tugendhat
Personally, I commit, absolutely, to engaging with Committees, not just the right hon. Gentleman’s own. The Intelligence and Security Committee is an important one. This Committee is another one, of course, but the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and various other Committees would, I am sure, have an interest in this area. I absolutely do commit to engaging to ensure that this clause is understood properly.
I would add, however, that to be a benefit in this area, and to be in scope of the offences, it would need to be a material benefit, so either money or money’s worth. Forgive me, I have received an answer. Before bringing a prosecution, a careful consideration of the nature of the benefit and the circumstances would be undertaken. A person has to know that they are obtaining a benefit from a foreign intelligence source, and there are several protections to avoid capturing legitimate activity. Legitimate activity, of course, as I said, refers to supporting an embassy that is in pursuit of its diplomatic functions or working with a police force, for example in the Republic of Ireland when an individual lives in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Halifax also made points about the timing of this. I appreciate that entirely, and I entirely respect her position. We must ensure that this goes through with the consent of the House.
Mr Jones
The Minister is being very helpful, but could I clarify something? If, for example, somebody received a benefit from a university, but it was subsequently found that the money was coming from a foreign intelligence agency—or if someone did work for a company then found out that it had been involved—that person perhaps did not know that. Am I assuming that, as it is written, if they continued after they were made aware of it, then they would fall into scope? If they could actually say that they did not know about it, is that a defence?
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. The point of the defence of “reasonable” is that, in order for this to be an offence, the individual needs to be aware that the benefit is supplied by a foreign intelligence source. Therefore, so long as they are unaware of it, it is not an offence. When they become aware of it, it is an offence.
The last point that I wish to make is on the delays. I know that the hon. Member for Halifax will understand that the Ukrainian situation, and a certain change of Government office holders most recently, may have interrupted the provisions. However, on that note—
Holly Lynch
I am really grateful to the Minister. I appreciate that he is winding up. I think, if I have understood his response to my question about sex in exchange for information, that, for something to be a benefit, it would have to have a monetary value. Therefore, if there was an exchange of sex for information, that could not be prosecutable under this new clause.
I just wanted to say that because a case was brought to my attention. Partly because I am reluctant to gather any further information by typing the word “sex” into a search engine on the parliamentary estate—I am always incredibly reluctant to do that, for obvious reasons—I could not establish any further details about a specific case. Will the Minister undertake to have a look at that in a bit more detail, just to ensure that we have not missed anything through narrow definitions within this clause?
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Lady can be absolutely assured that there is no way that I would like to leave out any form of inducement that a foreign intelligence service could use to entice somebody to commit a serious crime. Therefore, of course, I would be very happy to look into that.
The clause, as written, says:
“Material benefits may include financial benefits, anything which has the potential to result in a financial benefit, and information.”
Therefore, it is pretty broadly worded. I will talk to officials about how we could make it clearer if that is necessary, but I will certainly undertake to do that. Before I sit down, I will just say, God save the Queen.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 7 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Backbench Business
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Menopause and the Workplace
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Women and Equalities Committee
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
Before we start, I would like to repeat the statement made by Mr Speaker in the House of Commons, who sent his best wishes on behalf of everyone to Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family, who are in our thoughts and prayers at this moment.
Caroline Nokes will speak on the publication of the first report of the Women and Equalities Committee, “Menopause and the Workplace”, for up to 10 minutes, during which I cannot allow any interventions. At the conclusion of the statement, I will call Members who wish to ask questions on the subject of the statement, and call Caroline Nokes to respond. I must remind everyone that questions should be brief. I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Caroline Nokes.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Robertson, and I associate myself with the comments made by yourself and by Mr Speaker.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting me time in this Chamber and the opportunity to make this statement. I pass on my thanks to the Clerks to the Women and Equalities Committee and to the entire Committee for their incredibly hard work. It is now over a year since we launched the inquiry, a year in which we have seen menopause and its health and workplace issues rise to prominence. I think it is fair to say that there was a time, not that long ago, when nobody in this place would have wanted to talk about the menopause, and women of a certain age—that is, my age—would have been very anxious about talking about it publicly for fear of the stigma and taboo that is sometimes associated with menopause.
There has been a massive sea change in recent years. We have seen debates, both in this Chamber and on the Floor of the House, where Members—both male and female—have been very happy to talk about their own experiences and champion the change that we wish to see for our constituents. It was really encouraging to see the large number of Members who took part in the debate on World Menopause Month last year. I am sure that the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and I will be applying for another debate this year. We have had long discussions about the menopause workplace pledge, menopause workplace policies, and the importance of employers and businesses, whether large or small, adopting menopause-friendly policies. Indeed, we saw Mr Speaker sign the menopause workplace pledge on behalf of the House of Commons and the civil service, and we have also seen private companies such as John Lewis and Royal Mail sign that pledge.
What matters to me and my Committee, however, is not just a commitment from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to work hand in hand with businesses signing up to those sorts of pledges and introducing policies, but that those policies are implemented and acted on. When we launched the inquiry, we discovered that, although things have improved, this is no time to be complacent. In 2019, Bupa published research showing that almost 1 million women had left their jobs due to menopause symptoms, and that many women are still facing stigma in society and at work and are struggling to get diagnosis and treatment.
We launched the inquiry because menopause is an inevitable and natural part of growing older, but stigma, poor medical treatment and feeling compelled to give up work or to not take on promotions at the peak of one’s career should never be considered inevitable or normal. We took evidence from academics, lawyers, doctors, experts in business and people with lived experience, and they all said the same thing: yes, things are getting better, but there is still a long way to go.
We also looked at menopause as a health issue—the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East on hormone replacement therapy is very well known. On health, we found that stigma around menopause is still a significant problem for all women, but it is magnified for certain groups, such as minority ethnic women. I pay particular tribute to Karen Arthur, who came and gave evidence on behalf of black women going through the menopause. Certainly, younger women and LGBT+ people who have faced premature menopause and surgical menopause have faced particular challenges because it is not seen as a problem for them.
We have welcomed the inclusion of menopause on the relationships, health and sex education curriculum, but we want to see a really inclusive and high-profile public health and education campaign on menopause. There is some great work being carried out by organisations such as Pausitivity. Indeed, in my own county of Hampshire, great campaigners such as Jo Ibbott and Claire Hattrick have worked so hard on this issue. However, what we really want to see from the Department of Health and Social Care is an inclusive and high-profile public health campaign.
We heard that far too many women struggle to get an accurate diagnosis and that access to specialist services is limited. Women told us horrendous stories of being dismissed and ignored and having to really fight to explain what was going wrong with them to their GPs in order to get the appropriate prescriptions. The issues of access to HRT and the cost of prescriptions have been raised many times in this Chamber, but they are worth reiterating. Although we were pleased to see the appointment of the HRT tsar, we are worried that she is now headed back to her previous role as head of the vaccine taskforce while there are still shortages and protocols around 12 of the 13 HRT medicines.
At this point, I would like to pay particular tribute to the work of the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who did fantastic work on this in her previous post. We are sorry to see her go. It is poignant that today is the first day that over-the-counter HRT medicines have been available—I pay tribute to her for making that possible.
Women are staying in work for longer. Women over 50 are the fastest growing demographic in the workplace. However, despite being among the most experienced and skilled workers, and, indeed, role models to younger workers, some women are leaving their jobs, being forced out or forced to cut back their hours.
We heard about the many ways in which menopause can affect work, such as through problematic symptoms. Some 99% of respondents to a survey we ran outlined that they had at least one problematic symptom. In a modern society, it cannot be right that women are being discriminated against and that the menopause is contributing to women reducing their hours or leaving work altogether. We are losing skills, future generations are losing the benefit of their wisdom, and the economy is haemorrhaging talent.
The positive benefits of being menopause-friendly are obvious. They include not only strong reputational benefits, but the ability to retain the best and most experienced staff and to help women to thrive in the workplace. All of this will help to reduce the gender pay and pension gap. We heard that supporting menopausal employees need not be resource-intensive or costly. We heard of some fantastic schemes about menopause workplace champions. When employers ask, “What is the one thing we can do to support our female employees going through the menopause?”, the answer that invariably comes back is, “Give them space to talk and someone that they can trust to take their issues to.” Some of the organisations we spoke to had fantastic “Ask me” T-shirts, encouraging women to speak up and speak out.
We were shocked, however, to find how little awareness and guidance there is that the menopause can be both a health and safety at work issue and an equality issue. We have called on both the Health and Safety Executive and the Equality and Human Rights Commission to urgently issue menopause-specific guidance.
The current law makes it extremely difficult for women to bring a claim. I regard bringing a claim to a tribunal as a failure of workplace policies, but it does happen, and we have to ensure that it is easier for women to bring a menopause-specific claim. Both sex discrimination and age discrimination require a comparator—I know that hon. Members will immediately see the problem with a menopausal woman having to compare herself to a sick man in order to get redress. Too many women have been forced to resort to disability discrimination legislation in order to bring a claim. We considered whether any measure short of legal reform would help, but concluded that the Government needed to enact section 14 of the Equality Act 2010 to allow women to bring claims based on dual discrimination and to consult on making menopause a protected characteristic.
In conclusion, I hope that this important report will continue to drive social change and further encourage cross-Government action. It is imperative that all Government Departments are involved, including the Department of Health and Social Care, BEIS and the Departments for Education and for Work and Pensions. We need to improve the diagnosis and treatment of women and keep those many menopausal women who should be thriving at work in work. While we heard of many terrible experiences for women, we also heard from some utterly inspirational women and organisations. Let us continue the hard work that we have started, and find the ability to celebrate menopausal women’s contributions to society and the economy. I hope that the Minister will look at the work of the women’s health strategy, where menopause has been a priority—and the recently appointed women’s health ambassador, Dame Lesley Regan, is already doing great work—and make sure that women’s health, particularly menopausal women’s health, remains a priority.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee and the entire Committee for this important report. It rightly brings attention to the additional discrimination in the workplace and stigma that women from ethnic minorities go through during the menopause phase, which is often neglected in the wider conversation. Disappointingly, however, these problems were not mentioned in the relevant section of the Government’s women’s health strategy. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the Government should give consideration to the specific issues faced by ethnic minority women?
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Member for her question. She makes an important point. Not all women will experience the menopause in the same way, and not all cultures will address it in the same way. One of my biggest challenges as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee is to make sure that we address the intersectional issues. Fifty-one per cent. of our population are women, and the Committee will always be champions for them, but we must also address the different ways in which people of different ethnicities and ages and those with different disabilities will encounter various challenges relating to not just the menopause but health and workplace issues. It is imperative that we keep emphasising that, and that we do not take a one-size-fits-all approach to the issue of equalities, because it is simply not appropriate.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
As well as making up over 50% of the population, women are the fastest growing group in the workplace and are staying in work longer than ever before. Does the right hon. Lady therefore agree that it is vital that the Government appoint a menopause ambassador to champion good practice, and that they commence section 14 of the Equality Act 2010 to allow dual discrimination claims? And a fellow member of the Women and Equalities Committee, does she agree that, despite the fact that the word “women” has this week been dropped from departmental and ministerial titles relating to women and equalities, women, as well as equalities, will always remain at the top of the Committee’s agenda?
Caroline Nokes
I thank my fellow Committee member for her question. It is important that we have a menopause ambassador. The hon. Member is right to point out that the largest growing demographic in the workplace is women over 50. I would like to see much more effort go into championing—I hate to have to say this, but I declare an interest—women over 50. We potentially have ahead of us the best part of 20 years of further contribution to make to the workforce before hitting retirement age. It is imperative that we champion—I hate to use this word—older women, women with experience, and women who can act as role models. It is crucial that we do so. A menopause ambassador would be a good step, and I would like them to have a cross-cutting remit so that they can consider what can be done at DWP and the Department of Health and Social Care, and how menopausal issues can be championed in education and, of course, at BEIS. That would be a wide remit, and I am absolutely fixated on this. We should be looking at ways in which we can ensure that there are opportunities for women to retrain and to access finance to establish and grow their own businesses. There would be a massive boost to the economy if women were starting and scaling up businesses at the same rate as men.
The hon. Member makes an excellent point about dual discrimination, which the report covers in detail. The report does not call for menopause to instantly be made a protected characteristic, but we do say that the Government should consult on that, and I hope that they will have the courage to do so. We also say that section 14 of the Equality Act should be enacted immediately. I apologise for this very long answer, but that would give women the ability to bring a discrimination case on two protected characteristics—namely, age and sex. That would be a really important step forward, because we know that the menopause happens only to natal women and to those women who have transitioned to be legally men, so we must not exclude them and it is crucial that we do not forget about them.
We know that discrimination against LGBT+ people can be more severe than against others. A dual discrimination claim could be enacted swiftly and easily, and it would mean that women would not have to bring claims about the menopause under disability discrimination legislation. The menopause is many things—it is hideous, it is hot, it takes away your ability to concentrate and can leave you unable to sleep—but it is not a disability. Interestingly, many of the cases that have been brought under disability discrimination legislation have been found not proven, because it is not a disability.
The hon. Lady made a final point, one which is core to the work of my Committee, about the inclusion of the word “women” in women and equalities. I am absolutely determined that, in my time as Chair, the Committee will champion the rights of women and the inclusion of women, and will not see women erased.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Lady and the Select Committee for the report, and I thank her for her contribution. As hon. Members will know, I have supported this issue the whole way through, primarily because my own wife was going through it, and that gave me experience and understanding.
I understand that there are more women, including those over the age of 50, in employment than there have been for a great number of years, so this report is really important. Has the report been shared with other Administrations? I am very keen to ensure that we in Northern Ireland have the same opportunity to make important changes. Employing six ladies in my office, as I do, I understand that it is important to give space. Let us do that in Northern Ireland as well.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I can think of many an occasion when I have heard him speak in debates on the menopause, and I thank him for his commitment to the issue. He is right to point out that there are more women in employment now than I think at any time previously during my lifetime. That is a huge bonus and benefit that we should celebrate. We must hold up those women over 50 or those menopausal women in employment as role models and champions. They are the vanguard for a younger generation, and can be the menopause workplace champions who can provide the advice and that safe space for talking about this.
This issue absolutely applies across the whole of the United Kingdom, and we have to spread best practice. My Select Committee is tentatively considering a visit to Northern Ireland. I very much hope that we will get consent from the Liaison Committee to go on our first visit to Northern Ireland, and we hope to squeeze in a little trip to Dublin at the same time. People are looking to us as world leaders on this issue. I have been stunned at the number of parliamentarians from overseas who have contacted me about the work that we are doing here in the United Kingdom on the menopause. It is imperative that the work is shared among the devolved Administrations as well.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am very grateful to the Women and Equalities Committee and am enjoying the outbreak of agreement across this Chamber today—it is not always that way. The right hon. Lady’s comments about why it is so important that we talk about this issue resonate with me. It is not a niche issue. I talked about it with some constituents at the Neilston Menopause Café last week, or the week before—I can’t remember; that might be brain fog. It was an extremely useful opportunity for women at a particular point in their lives to have those conversations. Does the right hon. Lady agree that bringing that opportunity into the workplace context is particularly important, so that people can and do understand that the menopause is absolutely normal?
If I may, I will push my luck a little and ask a second question. The right hon. Lady mentioned prescription charges, which we do not face in Scotland, but does she agree that another issue for women who go through the menopause may be inadequate sick pay, which can exacerbate already troubling issues? Could the Committee focus its attention on that, given its impact on so many women?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Lady makes a number of important points. She has been to her local Menopause Café. There is a brilliant group in my constituency called What the Fog? I will be doing a seminar with it in a few weeks’ time. It is imperative that we normalise this in the workplace. I have spent the summer talking to organisations and businesses, large and small. I talked to an enormous group of women at Scania in Milton Keynes. It was incredibly. Just giving people the space to share their own experiences was really important to them, and it got the conversation going.
The hon. Lady has absolutely hit the nail on the head about the cost of the menopause. There is a cost to business, to the economy and to individual women. What we call for in the report is a trial, from a large-scale public sector employer, of menopause workplace leave. I would love to see a public sector organisation come forward and volunteer to do that. We understand that it is difficult for some women; they will have horrendous symptoms, but they can get it through it, and maybe leave is the answer.
Support for Local Food Infrastructure
(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
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of support for local food infrastructure.
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. At the outset, I should declare my own interests. For many years, I have been a partner in two family farms in Suffolk, and from this June I chair a community interest company called REAF—the Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries—which has the objective of reinvigorating the East Anglian fishing industry for the benefit of local communities such as Lowestoft in my constituency. REAF’s objectives very much coincide with the issues that will be raised in this debate.
On the farm where I grew up and still live, we have a pig unit. Forty years ago, pigs were conceived, born, reared and fattened on the farm, with feed milled and mixed there, and when the time came they went to an abattoir that was also in Suffolk. Today, things are very different; the piglets are born on different farms, moved to ours for rearing, then sent to abattoirs that are often a long way away. There is a risk that I will become dewy-eyed and sentimental—yes, the new way of doing things may be more efficient, but it is also of less benefit to local economies and communities, and an enormous number of food miles are generated. In many places local food infrastructure no longer exists. This needs to be addressed, as research carried out by Sustain confirms that local food systems provide better environmental, economic and social returns.
While much of this debate is focused on the long-term structural improvements that are needed to local food infrastructure, it is necessary to highlight the enormous pressures that currently impact all aspects of food production: the dramatic rise in energy prices, the supply and crippling cost of fertiliser and carbon dioxide, and the acute shortage of staff. If Government policy promotes the development of greater local supply, with the necessary supporting infrastructure, then we can embed greater resilience against these punitive outside forces.
It is important to provide some background information on the current state of the food sector. The groceries market in 2020 was worth £200 billion. The nine largest food retailers control over 90% of the market and, on average, farmers get only 9% of the agrifood gross value added. The 2021 Groceries Code Adjudicator survey showed a backwards slide on fairness: some 39% of fish caught by UK boats is landed and processed abroad, with little benefit coming back to local fishing communities such as the one in Lowestoft. To improve the situation, there is a need for investment in food infrastructure, including hubs for collaborative produce marketing, processing facilities, storage and refrigeration premises, abattoirs, dairy and creamery facilities, better signage and promotion of markets, improved digital and IT systems, farmers’ markets and grain and oilseed pressers.
Hubs can be provided at showgrounds, as the Suffolk Agricultural Association and the Royal Norfolk Agricultural Association are doing. As the drought persists in Suffolk—but perhaps not at the Oval—it is important to highlight the need for improved water infrastructure.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
I wholly support all the very important infrastructure investments that my hon. Friend has detailed, but on water, which is a vital ingredient in the mix, I want to raise my concern about local food partnerships. Because they are not commercially operated, they are suffering in this drought due to the water restrictions. I believe that some water companies are using their discretion, but South East Water is not. Is my hon. Friend sympathetic to my request to South East Water to revisit its policy and provide the relevant level of water support to local food partnerships, such as mine in Eastbourne, so that they can truly take their place and be part of the local food infrastructure?
Peter Aldous
Yes, I am sympathetic to that, and I will touch on water infrastructure a number of times during my speech. We probably have not realised its significance and importance up until the past few weeks, when it has become apparent. The harvest on the farm I come from was okay, but as these conditions persist, what will next year’s harvest be like? These problems will not just be here for this season; they may be here for some years to come.
The Countryside Alliance highlights five challenges that we need to address. There is a need for enhanced food security, which is particularly important given the appalling ongoing war in Ukraine. We need to bear it in mind that the UK produces some of the best food in the world, with the highest standards for safety and animal welfare, and we must build on that sound foundation.
A network of local abattoirs is vital, both to shorten the food miles and to enhance animal welfare. There is a need to improve public sector procurement, as highlighted in the Government’s food strategy. Last year, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended that access to procurement contracts be widened to smaller local suppliers without delay. There remains a need to improve food labelling, as that can empower the consumer. Finally, it is absolutely vital that digital infrastructure be improved in rural areas, as good connectivity allows businesses to find new and local markets and enables customers to access local produce online.
The Groceries Code Adjudicator, into which the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is currently carrying out a review, plays an important role in monitoring, ensuring compliance and enforcing the code, which helps strengthen the food supply chain of suppliers, retailers and consumers. Although that is not a matter directly for this debate, it is vital that the Government retain the adjudicator.
In Suffolk and Norfolk in 2019, the New Anglia local enterprise partnership set up its Norfolk and Suffolk Agri-Food Industry Council, to which REAF is making a presentation next week. The council’s role is to provide a strategic direction for the industry, which has a gross value added in the two counties of £3.1 billion and a workforce of 71,700. It produces 16.6% of the UK’s fruit and vegetables and 17.6% of our poultry.
The local infrastructure issues into which the council believes there is a need for strategic investment from the Government are as follows. As we have heard, there must be investment in water infrastructure to tackle the shortages that fruit and vegetable growers are increasingly facing. Shortages of electricity at key sites are blocking development opportunities. That is a problem at Ellough, on the outskirts of Beccles in my constituency. In transport and logistics, there is a need to improve key infrastructure routes and enhance cold chains—refrigerated facilities right along the supply chain.
The council highlights the need to ensure farmers and rural communities still receive the same level and quality of support, whether financial or through advisory services, under environmental land management schemes and the UK’s shared prosperity fund, as they did before we left the EU. Under the Government’s current proposals, Suffolk will receive less through the shared prosperity fund than it did through the previous EU structural funding. The allocation under the previous regime was estimated at between £18 million and £24 million, while under the shared prosperity fund it is proposed that it will be about £12 million. Anecdotally, there are reports of other areas receiving uplifts. Suffolk MPs have written to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to highlight this iniquity, and anything that my right hon. Friend the Minister in his new position can do to address it will be greatly appreciated.
It is important to showcase examples of good practice, where local initiatives are strengthening local food infrastructure. Three examples that I will mention come from very different backgrounds. First, in 2012, just outside Beccles in my constituency, Josiah Meldrum, Nick Saltmarsh and William Hudson founded Hodmedod to supply grain, pulses, flour and other products from British farms. They wanted to get local food systems working, to challenge the dominant just-in-time distribution systems and to bring more pulses and wholegrains back into the British diet as crucially neglected crops. They work closely with farmers, processors, packers and manufacturers to produce the crops, pack them after harvest and create the ever-growing range of products that they sell to customers online and in shops. The business relies on close relationships between farmers, buyers and those in the supply chain in between to ensure that the system delivers good livelihoods. They have invested in processing machinery to support that.
Secondly, while water companies are very much under the microscope at present, it is important to highlight the work of Anglian Water in providing latent heat from its sewage treatment plants to industrial-scale greenhouses at Fornham near Bury St Edmunds and at Whitlingham near Norwich. It is also making fertiliser from the sewage treatment process.
Finally, last week, the Government committed to making a significant investment in the Sizewell C nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast. Much work remains to be done before EDF can make a final investment decision and work can start on the site; it is carrying out preparatory work that includes the provision of a desalination plant, which in due course could help address the water challenge we have touched on. The energy and agricultural sectors need to work together to provide for our future water needs. That involves ensuring that groundwater is not extracted to such an extent that it exacerbates the biodiversity challenge that we are already facing.
As to how we can deliver meaningful investment to local food infrastructure, to benefit not only local businesses and producers but local people and communities, it is important to mention that the Government are coming forward with initiatives to improve the situation. Those include the fisheries and seafood scheme and the rural England prosperity fund that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced last week. Its launch of the review of the pig supply chain is also to be welcomed, as the industry is currently loss-making and clearly not working in a fair and transparent way. That said, however, my sense is that more can be done. The National Farmers Union highlights the need to improve the planning system. With regard to investment, it points to the need to make the UK the go-to place for investment in agriculture and food production. It proposes a regulatory system that protects consumers and the environment while incentivising innovation and investment, through both planning and fiscal policy.
The Government can take a number of steps to boost local food infrastructure. They include targeted productivity grants, which allow farmers to secure the win-win of more profitable and more sustainable food production that uses resources more efficiently; and investment in research and development and in agri-tech, involving effective two-way knowledge exchange, so that British farmers and growers can have access to the best tools and technologies. The NFU highlights the need to increase procurement opportunities for regionally produced food and prepare local food strategies. The strategies should be developed with LEPs, which have the best understanding of local food supply needs.
Sustain highlights the need to use “all the tools in the box” to promote local growth in shorter supply chains and with innovation at local and national level. It emphasises the need for public money for start-up funding to get new businesses established. That in turn would act as a catalyst for private sector investment. There is also a need for tax relief and low rents on local authority-controlled properties for local SME food businesses to help get them established in those difficult first two years.
Sustain also proposes that the UK Government should use the existing budgets and pots of funding—such as the UK shared prosperity fund and the community ownership fund—to create a £300 million to £500 million local food investment fund to provide strategic support across the UK for investment in localised agrifood infrastructure and enterprise.
Mr Robertson, you will be pleased to hear that I am coming to a conclusion. While these are troubled times and the immediate outlook is very uncertain, there is no reason why, working together, national and local government, public and private utilities, businesses all along the supply chain and local communities cannot bring about a sea change in how we produce, sell eat, and celebrate our food. That, in turn, can build self-sufficiency, embed long-term resilience and enhance community pride. If we do that, we can provide an exemplar, which can be a flagship for global Britain.
I welcome the Minister to his place. He is very much the right person to be answering this debate. I look forward to his reply and hope he will endorse that ambition and commit the Government to working with a very wide range of interested parties to deliver that truly sustainable future.
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
So that I can get everyone in, I will ask hon. Members to stick to five minutes, please.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this debate. As many people in this room are, I am passionate about food, particularly locally grown food. Our relationship with food, and how and when it can go wrong, is also important to me. I am very pleased to take part in this debate on food infrastructure because I think it is a critical point that is affecting many communities up and down the country.
I would like to commend the work of groups such as Regather, Our Cow Molly, which is a great dairy—the last dairy—in Sheffield, and the Sheffield Foodhall. They play a vital role in the local food infrastructure of my city.
Food prices, as we know, are spiralling. It is tempting to blame all of that on the war in Ukraine—Russia and Ukraine are obviously the largest producers of grain in the world—but the instability created by the war has only contributed to an existing problem. The Office for National Statistics figures for the retail prices index on food and catering were increasing way before the war—back in March last year.
One of the key drivers of rising food prices, and the volatility in prices, has been speculation on the international commodity markets. The UK imports just over half of its food, making it even more vulnerable to that volatility. The news that the pound has slumped to a 37-year low against the dollar will only increase the price of imported food, hitting people even harder in their pockets. Yesterday’s Financial Services and Markets Bill, which repeals the MiFID II regulations on commodity trading, will make that situation even worse.
The effects of that international context are writ large in statistics published by the Trussell Trust. Last year, it issued 2.2 million three-day emergency food parcels—an increase of 14% since the start of the pandemic, while, according to the Food Foundation, a shameful 13% of households are currently skipping meals. It is therefore vital that we are having this debate on local food infrastructure.
Building resilience to the chaos of international markets will need a concerted international effort to stop speculation—an effort that is currently missing from Government policy. It also means that building up capacity and food security at home has never been so important. A critical part of that must be supporting and expanding our local food infrastructure. We need investment to plug the gaps in local supply chains, to strengthen them, and to expand their capacity. We also need to fund advice and mentoring for farmers on business planning and sustainable farming methods, and, as the NFU has said, much more effort needs to go into encouraging public and private sector businesses to procure local food.
Our planning system also needs to change. It needs to encourage the diversification of food outlets and the growth of infrastructure supporting shorter supply chains, and it needs to safeguard the best land for agricultural use—it is pointless to waste nutrients if we can avoid it. We need to use shorter supply chains to build wealth in our communities. According to Sustain, every £10 spent on a local box scheme results in total spending of £25 in the local area, compared with just £14 when the same amount is spent in a supermarket. Changing food procurement guidelines and processes—making them more flexible to support local food suppliers—will be crucial for keeping money locally.
Most of all, however, we need a national strategy that joins up the action on the ground and that guarantees a right to food. During the pandemic I called for more support for people who were not getting access to food, and mutual aid and community organisations sprang up across the country, including Acorn, Voluntary Aid Sheffield and Sheffield Foodhall in my city. They delivered food to vulnerable people across the country, and the Government also stepped in to deliver food directly through local authorities. Just as Bevan saw in the Tredegar Medical Aid Society a blueprint for delivering universal healthcare, we should see in this network the beginnings of an infrastructure to deal with food insecurity. These community hubs should be formalised and given the backing and logistical support that they need to provide affordable food for people who need it. In this collective network, we can see the shape of a national service that would provide food for all and ensure that nobody went hungry. It needs only to have material and logistical support, and co-ordination from the state, and it must be integrated into existing local food infrastructure, which is waiting to be exploited.
A food system that leaves us vulnerable to chaos in world markets, or that results in more than one in 10 households skipping meals in one of the richest countries in the world, is not fit for purpose. The scale of the problems in the system must be matched by ambitions to build a new one. The seeds of the new way of doing things have been sown in the decentralised network of organisations, businesses and community groups that make up our local food infrastructure. We must nurture them and ensure that they grow into the local, democratic and sustainable food systems that we need and that many are crying out for.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing the debate and on his excellent speech. Like me, he has long championed the vital role of food in every aspect of our health, from the health of our children and communities to the health of our nation and planet.
To solve the current challenges that we face as a nation, growing the economy to create jobs and fund our public services will be essential. In a country where 99% of businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises—5.6 million in total—we need to support our local businesses in every town and city, and in every village and neighbourhood, if they are to survive and thrive. The Government can only do so much; as consumers, we need to do our part by reflecting on how we buy goods and services, and on what impact those decisions have on our local economy.
Many local businesses are food businesses—from our local corner shops that we depended on during covid lockdowns, to the cafes, restaurants and pubs that are the lifeblood of our high streets, and the market stalls that sell us fruit and vegetables, local cheeses or baked goods. I am always pleased to highlight the new food businesses that bring variety to my local high streets and increase the choices that we have in Stoke-on-Trent. In Hanley, recent additions have been the bao buns at Dumpling King, the lamb patties at Hamilton Bay and Asian fusion cuisine at Wagamama. The monthly artisan market that brings local producers into the city centre, and the fruit and veg stall outside the main entrance to the Royal Stoke Hospital, are evidence that there is growing food choice and better access to healthy food in my city. The local economy also benefits from new businesses such as Long Rest and Geek Retreat, which combine entertainment and refreshment by offering gaming alongside food and drink.
Businesses offering food and drink are key in complementing a retail offer that has been steadily shrinking. Changes in consumer buying patterns mean that our high streets are no longer dominated by large retail chains, so the rise of local independent businesses that are personally invested in the local community will be the key driver of the renaissance of town centres. Local people judge the success of regeneration by how their high street looks, and pride of place is vital to residents’ feeling of wellbeing and optimism about their local area. Too many areas are blighted by half-empty high streets, with negative impacts like uncleanliness and antisocial behaviour.
My personal passion for the food agenda has been shaped by two years of chairing the all-party parliamentary group on the national food strategy. While a number of recommendations from the Dimbleby review have been taken up by the Government, the fundamental challenge of how we systematically tackle the many broken elements of our food system remains unsolved. To provide a holistic solution, we need a food taskforce across multiple Departments and a good food Bill to enshrine reforms in law. This year in the UK we have experienced the hottest and driest weather on record. Conditions have caused crop failure and nature loss, making our land less productive. That is a system failure, not the fault of individual farmers or consumers, but we all face the consequences.
There is much to be done, and I am determined to champion innovation and investment in our local food infrastructure in Stoke-on-Trent. To that end, I would like to invite the Minister to a food summit that I am hosting at Staffordshire University on 4 November. The theme is
“From Field to Fork—The Future of Food,”
—that is a bit of a mouthful—
“exploring solutions to climate, health and food security challenges”.
I have invited food innovators to showcase their businesses and ideas.
To build national resilience to food insecurity, we need to grow—quite literally—our local food production and enable smaller food businesses to thrive. We also need to back local food manufacturers and retailers, which create employment opportunities, and welcome their engagement in community ventures. More than that, we need to grow community involvement in the redistribution of food, to minimise food waste. We need to encourage more community restaurants and food enterprises—more places that offer low-cost food, such as food clubs and pantries, which ensure that food surplus from the supply chain is not wasted. These need to be organised from within neighbourhoods and communities at the most local level.
We need cookery classes and clubs, as well as community kitchens, to help with the cost of food preparation and to teach new skills. Growing schemes in community allotments are springing up around the city. There is definitely more that can be done to support improving the urban environment, such as planting community orchards on public land that has lain fallow for many years and represents a cost to councils. Does the Minister agree that local authorities should be supported to pilot schemes that develop surplus land and premises for urban farming and sustainable food production, delivering benefits for the public good? Does the Minister also agree that it is time for a major conversation around our food system, with the basic principles at its heart of buying local, supporting British producers and working together to ensure that consumers everywhere have access to good-quality, local food.
Only communities can build a strong and sustainable local food infrastructure. However, Government can help in a number of ways, from setting procurement standards, which ensures that more locally sourced produce is supplied to our public sector, to incentivising urban growing and new community food enterprises or investing in projects relating to diet and public health that promote good food choices. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs commissioned the national food strategy report to identify many of these challenges. Now is the time to take forward the solutions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank you for giving me the chance to speak, Mr Robertson, and I particularly thank the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for raising the issue. He and I have many things in common, including that we represent coastal areas where there is fishing and farming. He has clearly illustrated his depth of knowledge on the subject matter, and we thank him for that.
My five-minute speech will focus not just on all the good things that Strangford has, because it would take more than five minutes to say them, but on the bigger story as well. Can I say how pleased I am to see the Minister in his place? I miss him as Leader of the House, but I am pleased to see him here to take up the cudgels on behalf of farming and fishing. I wish him well and know that we will be able to enjoy and take note of his knowledge of those areas.
The United Kingdom is largely self-sufficient in terms of our food and drink industry. The UK food supply represents some 6.8% of gross value added. It is worth £107 million and provides 4 million jobs, with around half a million people in farming and fishing. In Northern Ireland, food and drink is a £5.4 billion industry. As I was sitting here, I was thinking about beef and lamb because they are significant in my constituency. They are worth £1.3 billion. Some 5,000 staff are involved in processing beef and lamb, and 20,000 farmers are active in that industry. Also, we export 70% of that beef and lamb, because in Northern Ireland we produce more than we eat as the population is only 1.8 million. For us, the UK mainland is so important for our produce for export. Our success is down to pure and fresh manufacturing from local farmers and countryside, right through to our fishermen who provide the local seafood from Portavogie harbour in my constituency of Strangford and down as far as Annalong and Kilkeel in South Down.
Strangford is lucky enough to have numerous food infrastructure manufacturers. We have incredible vegetable suppliers in Willowbrook Foods, and Mash Direct and Rich Sauces. Strangford has one of Lakeland Dairies’ main factories—one of nine it has across Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—which distributes dairy products across Northern Ireland and further afield. Newtownards high street has four butcheries, which are all very successful and have their own regulars who dare not go anywhere else. Those four butchers employ some 80 staff. They do a lot of work in their butchers’; it is not just a butcher’s front shop, but more than that.
A thriving food economy supports and brings benefits for local nature and habitats. Financing our rural communities is crucial to securing good food infrastructure. The International Institute for Sustainable Development said that those areas around the globe where people are suffering hunger are fairly rural areas, which lack basic services such as energy, due to a lack of infrastructure. Food security is a global effort—the Minister might wish to reply on that—and we must ensure that we commit our efforts to enabling others to prosper through trade and other food facilities.
Recently, concerns have been voiced—which we all share—over the rise in food prices due to the cost of living. In 2020 to 2021, in the peak of the pandemic, 6% of all UK households were food-insecure. The Trussell Trust, whose first food bank ever in Northern Ireland was in my constituency of Strangford, provided 2.2 million three-day food packages during that period. That was echoed in my constituency, and our local food bank has seen a rise in the number of households getting assistance from the Trussell Trust and other charitable organisations. They tell me that the demand now is even higher than it was way back then; we worry about that. To secure the future of our food security and infrastructure, we must deal with those pressing issues, such as food poverty, which our constituents are facing daily.
In 2022, the national food strategy aims to secure the resilience of our food supply system, so that UK-wide consumers have a choice in accessing healthy and affordable food. Our constituents deserve a food industry that can provide for them. Moreover, we must ensure that access to the market is readily affordable and available, and that praise is given to those in the food and drink sector for assisting in providing decent food infrastructure.
The Government have a food infrastructure strategy for England. I encourage the Minister and his Department to ensure that food infrastructure is given nationwide consideration and that, most importantly, the effects of the Northern Ireland protocol do not have an impact on Northern Ireland’s contribution to the UK’s food security and infrastructure. The Minister at DEFRA has always had a close relationship with our Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Edwin Poots. I have no doubt whatsoever that that will continue and it is important that it does. The sector provides so much for all of us, together. I always say this and I do not take away from it: we are always better together. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, all the four regions together and working as one, and those exports, if we can all do them together, mean that we all benefit.
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
I will impose a formal four-minute limit.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Mr Robertson. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this important debate. I also want to welcome the Minister to his place this afternoon. I know he farms himself, so I hope he will listen. He has visited my beautiful constituency and heard of the plight of my 1,400-plus farmers and the more than 90,000 hectares of land farmed in North Devon.
I take the opportunity to sing the praises of my fantastic farmers and to echo the pleas from the NFU:
“We want British agriculture to be the number one supplier of choice to shoppers in the UK and across the world. To achieve this, we stand ready to partner with government to build the British food brand at home and abroad and to ensure that, wherever possible, our schools, hospitals and military have access to fresh, high quality British food.”
I very much hope that the new Administration will ensure that we take further steps to deliver that. As part of that, I hope there will be further support and guidance for our smaller farmers—farms in Devon are nearer 60 hectares, which is smaller than the UK average of 85 hectares—to ensure that those smaller producers are able to optimise their food production in a sustainable way for the future, so that we can go on to enjoy British produce that much more and that much closer to home.
I had the privilege of leading the red meat debate not that long ago. I want to draw on some of those facts, because I think the work that has been done on the food strategy highlights the need for us to have a nutritious diet. However, the rush to replace our meat and dairy products with other items does not necessarily constitute either a healthy or an environmentally sustainable option.
There are currently 278 million dairy cows worldwide. We would only need 76 million if they were all as efficient as a UK cow. Eight litres of tap water are needed to produce one litre of milk, but 158 litres of tap water produce one litre of almond milk. Therefore, before we all rush for some more crushed avocado, we need to think about where those things have come from and the journeys they have made to get to our tables. A good British bacon sarnie might actually be the right breakfast choice. I hope that people will think about those choices, that we can see more red tractors on all our produce, and that we are able to help our fantastic British farmers deliver their fantastic British produce to our supermarkets and shops more readily.
Another factor to look at within British food is the high environmental standards that farmers currently operate to, not to mention the nutrient density of the products that we are eating. The complexities of food and the science around it are sometimes neglected behind the media hype and the current fashions for Veganuary. As we move forward with the food strategy and the evolution of our farming industry to become even more sustainable and productive, I hope that we are able to find a healthy balance between people being able to make their own food choices and helping our fantastic British farmers do what they do best—produce fantastic British food.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby). She is in fact a vegetarian, so I am pleased to hear her talking about the benefits of eating meat.
I am proud to represent a constituency that produces fantastic, high-quality food—a lot of which is already sold through local retailers. The subject certainly resonates with farmers and growers, as I know from my regular discussions with them. Whenever the media comes across some new way of making food more local and more sustainably produced, inevitably one finds that farmers and producers are ahead of them and already doing it. Many of those businesses provided vital support to their communities during the pandemic. I thank them for that, and I promise them my support in what might be challenging times ahead.
In my constituency we have businesses such as Meonstoke Village Store and Westlands Farm Shop, which sell a wide range of locally sourced produce. We have Middle Farm Produce, a fantastic dairy farm in Cheriton, which has a vending machine so that people can buy directly in the most convenient way. We also have Reeve Butchers and Delicatessen in Clanfield, which makes fantastic sausages; Meon Valley Butchers in Wickham; Buckingham’s Artisan Butchery in West Meon; and many others, selling excellent food.
That links with the real issue in local food—abattoirs. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) has already mentioned that. I realise that there are factors such as workforce availability, but the key challenge facing the sector is still regulation and Government support. If we want to reduce food miles and support local food, we must help abattoirs. They are facing increasing regulatory costs, which are disproportionately affecting smaller abattoirs. As the regulations increase, the margins reduce and prevent investment. If abattoirs cannot invest, modernise and update effectively, then the small, local abattoirs risk their entire existence. There has to be some recognition of their work and the role they play within local and small supply chains, because without them we will have no local supply chain. I shall be grateful if the Minister would look into that.
There is a frustrating stereotype that farming is somehow negligent or exploitative in how it produces food or manages the countryside. We should address that through education, as well as marketing in the food and farming sector. Getting the food from the farm to the fork with fewer stages and miles between the two points is not only environmentally beneficial, but an insurance against national or global supply chain disruptions. At present, I am hearing from everyone involved in food production, food service and retail about the increasing costs that they are facing. The global challenge resulting from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has direct and local consequences for everyone, but I can assure everyone who is involved in food production in Meon Valley that they have my support and my thanks for everything that they have done to rise to the difficult challenges of recent years.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this debate and I congratulate the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), on his appointment. It is one of those rare beast occasions when we have a round peg in a round hole. I am sure that he will be a Minister for agriculture.
In Thanet, we have Thanet Earth, which is probably the prime example of sustainable crop production in the United Kingdom. It is the largest greenhouse complex in Europe—at present, it is the size of about seven football pitches—and grows a variety of tomatoes under glass. It is highly successful and I think that it is blazing a trail, but—this is the “but”—most of the agriculture in the “Garden of England” and most of the agriculture in Thanet is still out in the open fields, or what is left of the open fields. That is my problem and the point that I will discuss.
We have two issues. One is the spread of solar farms on agricultural land, which is unsustainable and in my view unforgivable. There are acres of rooftop, acres of carparks and acres of public space on which solar farms can and should be put. They should not be put on agricultural land and I hope that practice will stop forthwith under the new Administration.
The second issue is agricultural policy. Our desire to be sustainable in food production is simply not compatible with our housing policy. I raised with the previous Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time some months ago the need for a moratorium on house building on agricultural land. In Thanet, we have grade one and grade two alluvial soil. It is some of the finest land in the country, but we are smothering it with houses.
The issue of water supply has also been raised today. The more we smother our agricultural land with housing, the more our aquifers, such as the Thanet aquifer, will dry up. Actually, that might not matter very much, because if we do not have any land to grow crops on, crops will not need watering.
All I want to say, and this really is all I want to say to my right hon. Friend the Minister today, is this: please can we get back to the days when the Ministry for Agriculture, as it then was, had a veto over change of use on agricultural land, and can we have a moratorium on building on agricultural land, so that we can grow the food that this country needs?
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale). I agree with absolutely everything he said. The Campaign to Protect Rural England talks about there being 1.3 million acres of brownfield sites across the UK, which plays well to his point that we should look at those sites and at buildings for solar panels rather than using green fields.
It is also a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing it. It is a timely debate, because of covid, the supply chain problems that we have had and the cost of living, and also because support for our farmers and our fishermen is absolutely essential. I pay tribute to the previous Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Neil Parish, for his work on this matter in the reports published by the Committee late last year. The work of that Committee has been absolutely tremendous and it has made a number of good suggestions.
I welcome the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), to his place. It is really welcome news that we have a farmer in that role; I know that my farmers are delighted he is there, and I hope that he will come down and visit us.
The subject of this debate cuts through to the very heart of localism in terms of our approach to and support for local businesses. Dare I say that I think we ought to be a little bit more French? It is not often that I am supportive of some of the measures that the French Government put in place, but one thing that can be seen in local communities across France is how they support local farmers and local producers within their communities —indeed, there are not as many supermarkets in the surrounding areas as are found elsewhere.
That French appetite for, interest in and manner of operating with their own farmers and fishermen must be replicated in the UK. We have been talking about localism for the last 12 years and we now have a real opportunity to implement it. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) discussed how we talk about food and how we encourage people to learn how to cook. Actually, an extraordinary number of opportunities for people to learn have already been provided by the private sector. There is a small group called Cookable, which helps people in schools and in workplaces by giving them better lessons on how to cook and how to have better engagement with the food they eat. On top of that, we have to think about how we educate people about the food they eat and where it comes from. What programmes can be put in place in schools to get children on to farms and fishing boats to ensure that people are more aware of the fact that the good-quality food we produce in this country is worth supporting and eating?
I will spend most of my time today talking about the south-west food hub. In 2014, David Cameron launched a plan for public procurement. The plan was that £1.2 billion worth of food should be bought by the public sector, improving standards. In response to that plan, the Crown Commercial Service committed to introducing a dynamic purchasing system to allow SMEs to register for Government contracts. In 2016, that was successfully piloted in Bath and north-east Somerset. The pilot demonstrated that food costs did not increase when buying from local SMEs, and it generated cost savings of 6% in the first year due to increased transparency and shorter supply chains.
Due to that pilot, the south-west food hub was selected by the Crown Commercial Services to do a scaled-up pilot. Unfortunately, the CCS has now reneged on its agreement with the south-west food hub and the hub has been dropped. That is a real mistake, because there is an opportunity here, with an organisation that is already set up, to build on two successful pilot schemes to ensure we get better local homegrown food into the stomachs of our constituents and on to the shelves of our shops. We have to have a long-term strategy about that. We are doing it for oil and gas and we are doing it for our energy infrastructure. Let us think about how we can do it for our food production and how we can support our farmers and fishermen.
It is interesting that in the Agriculture Act 2020 there is a requirement for the Secretary of State to come forward and talk about food security. I really hope that is going to happen this autumn—the time is now. It is a perfect opportunity for us to talk about how we can improve the self-sustainability of the United Kingdom, and our own food security. It is levelling up in the perfect form. It will not even cost us money.
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
Thank you to everyone for sticking to time. We come to the Front-Bench contributions. I would like to leave two minutes at the end for the mover of the motion to sum up.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson. I commend the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this debate. His passion for the subject has always been clear in the time I have known him in Parliament. He started with some quite startling facts about the nine largest retailers controlling over 90% of the market in food, and the huge percentage of fish caught here that is processed off-shore and the impact that has. He also expressed some concerns about local food partnerships. We heard from other Members about the planning changes that are needed, and how £10 spent on a local box scheme means much greater spend in the local area. That point was well made. The need for a wider conversation about our food system was another important point.
I thank Sustain for its very useful briefing ahead of this debate. Much of it reflects what is going on in Scotland, where food policy is devolved. As I often do, I will share with Members some of what is already under way in Scotland. One of Sustain’s recommendations is for all local authorities that do not have a food partnership to aim to start one, in collaboration with the Sustainable Food Places Network, by 2025. Scottish councils are well represented in that network; half of all our local authorities now have a food partnership and are members of Sustainable Food Places—with more to follow in the next few years.
Last year, the SNP Scottish Government ran a consultation on a local food strategy. It had three main themes: connecting people with food, connecting local producers with buyers, and harnessing the buying power of public sector procurement. Nearly 300 people participated in 18 workshops designed and co-ordinated by Nourish Scotland in partnership with Scotland’s Sustainable Food Places Network and the Scottish Government. There was broad support from everyone for local food, but a number of barriers were identified, some of which we have heard about today. They include a need for suitable infrastructure and short supply chains, for local food to be affordable and accessible for all, and for more land to be made available and accessible for those who wish to enter the market. There was also acknowledgment of the value of dynamic purchasing systems and the need to extend public sector procurement for local food to all publicly owned settings, which I note is one of Sustain’s key recommendations. Work is now under way to address the key challenges identified, building on the ideas and suggestions made at that time, as well as relevant Scottish Government strategies and policies.
Underpinning that action is the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament in June. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that Act, which begins to lay the foundation for a transformation of Scotland’s food system. It requires the Scottish Government and a range of public bodies to produce good food nation plans that are geared towards ensuring that high-quality, locally sourced food is affordable, accessible and a practical, everyday reality for everyone. An independent food commission will also be established which will scrutinise and make recommendations on those plans and give progress reports.
Alongside that, the Scottish Government’s vision for agriculture, published in March, aims to transform how we support farming and food production to deliver nutritious food that is local and sustainably produced. Work is under way now with farmers, crofters and land managers to ensure that they have the right support to continue delivering high farming standards and to create more localised supply chains, enhance producer value and cut food miles. That ties in with the consultation on the forthcoming agriculture Bill at Holyrood, which covers a range of areas including promoting quality and sustainable food production, and ensuring a fair income for farmers and crofters, which is crucial.
Another tangible way in which the SNP Government are investing in and boosting the profile of local and regional produce is through the regional food fund, which awards projects grants of up to £5,000. Since its launch four years ago, the fund has supported an incredibly eclectic range of collaborative initiatives from all over Scotland. This year, 24 projects have been granted awards, from food and drink festivals and events to food tourism collaborations, and from online and physical markets to e-commerce. Regional food groups will deliver projects such as a “buy local” campaign from Eat and Drink Dundee, and a food heritage project by Lanarkshire Larder.
A number of hon. Members have made the point that harnessing local food is all the more crucial in the context of the cost of living crisis and the need to bolster our food security. This summer, the annual rate of inflation reached its highest level since 1982, and perhaps even before. Food and non-alcoholic drink prices were 12.6% higher in the year to July 2022. The research firm Kantar forecasts that the average annual grocery bill will rise by £380—a shocking figure. We know that low-income households are hit the hardest by price increases, as they spend a higher proportion than average of their income on energy and food.
Supply chain challenges, rising energy, fertiliser and transport costs, as well as labour shortages, have contributed to escalating prices. Although those problems have been exacerbated by Russia’s war on Ukraine, our food security was already under threat. Recent years have seen an unfair burden placed on community organisations such as food banks, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted very effectively. The folks running those services do an utterly incredible job. I have to commend those operating food banks in my own constituency—they are providing lifeline support—but food banks are a symptom of a dysfunctional food and social security system.
The Scottish Government intend to incorporate the right to adequate food in Scots law. A draft national plan has been published to end the need for food banks as a primary response to food insecurity. Achieving that means focusing on tackling the causes of poverty holistically, through fair work, social security and helping to manage the cost of living. For instance, the SNP Government have used their limited powers to increase Scottish social security payments by 6%, and have just announced that they are increasing the Scottish child payment to £25 per child for those who are eligible. We urgently need a similar raise in reserved benefits. Another reserved area that we are greatly concerned about is the UK’s pursuit of post-Brexit free trade deals, which is a subject that was well aired in the debate on the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill earlier this week.
I hope the Minister has heard the very sensible suggestions that Members have made, as well as their commitment and passion for local food production and the benefits it can bring. I hope he will take that forward in his new post.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. For the second time today, I welcome the Minister to his place. His predecessor, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), always dealt in a thoughtful and dignified way with the constant questioning and assault that came her way, generally from her own side before I started. I wish her well in her new post.
I commend the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), with whom I have worked on many issues relating to the east of England. I hope I am not doing his career prospects too much harm by saying that I agreed very much with his introduction and many of the points he made. I associate myself with his observations about the shared prosperity fund, which I suspect we shall return to on other occasions, the role of the Grocery Code Adjudicator and the review of GSCOP.
I thank the organisations that have provided briefings. It is always dangerous to give a list in case somebody is missed, but I was particularly struck by the contributions by Sustain, the NFU, the Countryside Alliance and the 3F Group in the south-west.
We are having this discussion at a time when many of our constituents are suffering great anxiety about the food bills they face now and will face in the winter. There are no two ways about it: the situation in terms of rising costs is serious. There is nothing more serious than the increasing number of people facing food poverty in the UK. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) for setting out the figures, and I make no apology for repeating them. The Food Foundation told us that, as of April, 7.3 million people, including 2.6 million children, were in food poverty, and in 2021-22 the Trussell Trust supplied 2.2 million three-day emergency food parcels to food bank users. Just yesterday, the Trussell Trust released a statement with details of a survey in August that estimates that more than 2 million people skipped meals across the previous three months to keep up with other essential costs.
Those are sobering numbers. With the cost of the family shop rising week by week, I fear that the number of those experiencing food poverty and relying on food banks will increase. Although we are all extraordinarily grateful to our local food banks—I pay tribute to all the volunteers and supporters in Cambridge—it cannot be right for the Government of a rich nation like ours to rely on them to feed people. As many others have observed, our role must really be to put food banks out of business by ensuring they are no longer needed.
A couple of weeks ago, I was pleased to meet Cambridge Sustainable Food and other local food poverty charities from across the county, which shared with me a public statement voicing that very concern. They said:
“Our member organisations are experiencing a perfect storm of increases in the numbers of people seeking help with food, often people who never expected to find themselves in this position, whilst donations of food and money are reducing as people are tightening their belts. We feel that the voluntary sector is plugging gaps in state provision for vulnerable households and worry that we will not be able to cope with rising demand”.
I wholeheartedly share their concerns.
Part of the solution will be supporting local food infrastructure, as other hon. Members have described well. Labour strongly supports such initiatives. On food security for local economies, there have been a number of reports showing that money spent on local food produce results in money staying in the local area and creates more jobs per pound than if that money were spent in the supermarket. The Sustain report in July 2021 found that for every £10 spend with a local food box scheme resulted in total spending of £25 in the local area, compared with just £14 when the same amount is spent in a supermarket.
On environmental concerns, we have heard a number of excellent examples of local food infrastructure working well in constituencies up and down the country. It has been a pleasure to hear details of those schemes from colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam.
In my constituency, CoFarm, run by founder and chief executive Gavin Shelton, is another great example. Established in 2019, it has since been successful in delivering several remarkable benefits to our local community, from tackling food insecurity to supporting the rebuilding of local biodiversity and ecosystems, as well as reducing health inequalities in an area of my city where life expectancy is 10 years lower than in the most affluent parts. I have been a regular visitor, and it is really impressive.
We know that the model of local food production works. We saw during the pandemic how local farms and local food infrastructure were able to respond to the needs of their local communities, and did so really well. Of course, that local food production will always sit alongside the wider food production system. It is not a replacement; it is complementary. It works for local economies, for the environment, and for people whose health is improved partly by the very act of participating—it really helps mental health. We want that model to be supported with Government investment, to ensure that more food can be sourced and eaten locally. As the agricultural support system is changing, it is perhaps worth reflecting on the fact that many of those small, local producers have never been supported by the systems that excluded those under five hectares. It may be time to revisit that.
There are many other things I could refer to, but in passing, I would like to pick up on some of the points made about local abattoirs. For instance, when one talks to people who want to return to mixed farming, it becomes pretty clear that it is very hard to do so without the local ability to raise livestock in the way those people would like. Sadly, I see from reading this week’s Farmers Guardian that another one has just gone—Glossop-based Mettrick’s.
Turning to the fishing sector, I very much associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for Waveney, and strongly commend his work with REAF. In my time as the shadow Fisheries Minister, I have been struck by the amount of fish that is driven around the country because we do not have local processing facilities, and how much more we could do—particularly with small fishers—to develop an important premium product that people would really like to have access to if we had the support to improve those facilities.
I am sure the Minister is aware that Labour’s mantra has been to make, buy and sell more in the UK; I suspect he will hear more about it—endlessly—in the coming months. It has been very well received. The future Labour Government will ask every public body to give more contracts to British firms, and will pass legislation requiring them to report on how much they are buying from domestic sources with taxpayers’ money, which we believe will help British farmers and local food producers.
We welcomed the Government’s indication in their response to the national food strategy that they were moving in a similar direction; although we were, in general, disappointed with the response to the national food strategy, that was a glimmer of hope. However, that was the previous Government. Maybe today, the Minister can confirm to us whether that is still the intention, because in the Prime Minister’s final hustings with the NFU on Friday, she rather suggested that she did not approve of top-down targets. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the current thinking is.
We are committed to fixing the food system, in order to meet the health and environmental challenge identified by Henry Dimbleby in his national food plan; end the growing food bank scandal; ensure that all families can access healthy, affordable food; and improve our food security as a country. We want to buy, make and sell more here, and to make changes to public procurement so that our schools and hospitals are stocked with more locally sourced, healthy food. Local food infrastructure will play a vital and important role in achieving all those things.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mark Spencer)
Mr Robertson, am I correct that I have until 3.08 pm to try to catch as many of those comments as I can?
Mark Spencer
I apologise now if I do not manage to respond to all the points that have been made.
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing the debate. It is clear from the number of people who have taken the trouble to be in the Chamber today that lots of colleagues across the whole House are interested in this topic; it is a demonstration of how important this issue is, not only to Back Benchers but to the Government. I also thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for his kind words. That is twice he has given me kind words today—I am very much enjoying this honeymoon period. [Interruption.] I am sure it will not last too long.
First, it is worth pointing out that the food and drink industry is a vital cornerstone of our national economy. It contributes about £139 billion annually across all the agrifood and seafood sectors, and employs 4 million people. We are determined to have a productive, secure and resilient domestic food and drink sector, and we are supporting businesses to ensure that that is the case. We are rightly proud of our food and drink sector. We will always champion our farmers and producers and support them to grow, innovate and thrive. We have heard in the debate today various suggestions for how innovation can take place and how we can assist companies that operate in that sector to innovate.
The food strategy published earlier this year sets out how we can make the food we eat more sustainable and healthier for consumers, while maintaining the resilience of the supply chain and creating a prosperous environment for food and drink businesses across the whole country. The UK has had a highly resilient food supply chain, as demonstrated when we responded to covid-19 as a nation. It is worth pointing out that although there was enormous pressure on some food supply chains, at no point did the UK run out of food. Our food security report in December 2021 highlighted that. We are well equipped to deal with situations with the potential to cause of disruption.
Our high degree of food security is built on supply from diverse sources, including strong domestic production as well as imports through stable trade routes. We produce 61% of all the food we need, and we can grow 74% in the UK for most of the year. That draws me to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who talked about education and getting kids in schools to understand our food networks and how food is produced, and seasonality has a huge part to play in that. I know that some people in the food retail sector will be frustrated by customers that turn up on Christmas eve and say, “Why is there no UK asparagus?” Education of our consumers will play an important part in food resilience as we move forward.
Although the food supply chain is under some strain owing to multiple concurrent pressures, the sector has proven itself capable of keeping supply strong. We can expect that to remain the case over the winter months. However, it is worth pointing out that Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has had a massive impact on energy and food supplies across Europe. We are part of that global network and are feeling the winds of pressure from that invasion.
The Government have already taken action to support farmers. This year we pulled forward the basic payment schemes, so 50% of the payment has already gone out. There is a £37 billion package of support for households. The Government are determined to tackle the cost of living, and of course the House heard earlier from the Prime Minister as she set out further plans to support people through the coming months.
We have introduced a set of questions into the family resources survey to measure and track food bank usage, and DEFRA is working with delivery partners to tackle barriers to food redistribution. DEFRA continues to use regular engagement, working with retailers and producers to explore a range of measures so that they can ensure the availability of affordable food.
We are giving support to local food. SMEs are at the heart of the sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) said that 98% of small businesses are food and drink manufacturers. Such businesses often use local supply chains to source ingredients, with low food miles and championing sustainability. The Government are focused on helping these businesses grow, including through exporting, selling direct to consumers, accessing public sector procurement opportunities, and promoting their products at a regional level. That point goes right to the heart of the debate and the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney. Clearly, the infrastructure required to support that is vital.
Several colleagues mentioned the lack of abattoirs or fish processing in certain locations, but there is a reason to be optimistic. There are companies that are exploring mobile abattoirs as one concept that might be able to assist local markets to thrive and expand. As part of our support for these businesses, the Government hosted a regional food and drink summit in Birmingham in March. The summit successfully brought together SMEs and regional organisations to share best practice and access help to grow their businesses.
Following on from that, we are continuing to empower businesses and regional organisations to leverage growth opportunities, champion their regional food identity and develop links with local tourism, which will be holding a workshop later this year in the east of England—we would be delighted if my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney could attend and celebrate the fantastic food and drink from businesses in Suffolk and in his own constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) referred to tourism and to the beautiful landscape of North Devon—I had the privilege of taking my wife to the South Molton sheep sales—that probably says more about my performance as a husband than as a Minister—which was a recognition of those supply chains and how important they are to that local economy.
We recognise the importance of local sourcing. This was reflected in the Government’s hospitality strategy published last year, which included a commitment to develop a blueprint for hospitality-led regeneration. Street food venues will be encouraged to connect with local food producers and reduce food miles and waste, boost employment, and grow local economies.
In addition to the Government’s work, we recognise the role that local organisations play in supporting local food and drink. For example, the New Anglian Local Enterprise Partnership has funded a food enterprise park just outside Norwich. This is part of a plan to develop a food and drink cluster between Norfolk and Suffolk to facilitate growth in the agrifood sector and encourage food and drink production across the area. It is also vital that we work as united nations, that we co-operate with friends in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and that those food production networks are easy to access and to celebrate. The food that is produced in those other parts of the United Kingdom will be vital to keep us all fed and healthy.
[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]
It is clear that local partners will continue to play a key role in growing local food, and we will be supporting and promoting food and drink businesses as we continue to work with these organisations to support local businesses and grow local economies. Supply chains form a crucial part of our local food infrastructure. The Government want all farmers to get a fair price for their products and we are committed to tackling contractual unfairness in the agrifood supply chain. There is a lot of debate about the Groceries Code Adjudicator—I sat on the original Bill that introduced it—but it has had an impact in making sure those in the retail sector conduct themselves in the right way.
We recognise the role that small abattoirs play in supporting local, rural economies. Representing a Nottinghamshire constituency, I can tell the Chamber that there is now no longer an abattoir in the whole county; farmers have to travel to access that sort of facility, and I know it is the same in many other counties. We are working with the Food Standards Agency and the Rural Payments Agency to streamline our administrative burdens, and our DEFRA industry small abattoir working group is engaging closely with the industry to ensure we take a strategic view of the issues facing the sector.
I raise the point of skills and labour. We know that labour is a critical part of our mission to support food producers, both nationally and locally. As announced in the Government’s food strategy, we have commissioned an independent review to tackle labour shortages in the food supply chain. The review will continue, and will consider how automation may help. New technology may well be able to assist us as we move forward, and of course that brings its own economic opportunities, as we are able to develop new technology and market it around the world if it is proven to be successful. The food strategy also announced that we will release an extra 10,000 visas for the seasonal workers visa route, bringing the total to 40,000 visas for 2022.
There were a few comments made about land use, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale). Land use is going to rise up the political agenda. My right hon. Friend, and other Members, will have heard the Prime Minister talk about the siting of solar panels on agricultural land. I share his view that the first priority should be to put solar panels on warehouses, schools and leisure centres before we take agricultural land out of food production. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes who referred to the large amount of brownfield sites around the country that should be used first for housing developments or those sorts of schemes.
There are lots of reasons to be optimistic. There are lots of opportunities for us as a nation to support our great food producers and lead the world in some of the technology that is available; we should certainly promote that around the world. I am hugely proud of our food and drink sector and I recognise the important role it plays up and down the country in rural areas. We will continue to engage with the industry to develop strong local food infrastructure and ensure that British food is recognised at home and abroad for its high quality and welfare. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney for bringing this debate and look forward to his concluding comments.
Peter Aldous
It is great to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. We have had a wide-ranging debate, so I will quickly go through some of the issues we have discussed. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) took me back nearly 40 years to one of my favourite films, “Trading Places”, which is all about speculation on the commodities market. That might have been funny, but she raised a serious point. With local supply chains and local food, we can insulate ourselves against such speculation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) reminded us that supply chains extend right into urban areas—they go a very long way. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) reminded us of the importance of water as an ingredient in the food infrastructure that we must provide for. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his own passionate way set out the importance of supply chains, reminding us how far those supply chains extend, and highlighted both the worries and distress caused by food insecurity and the great work of the Trussell Trust.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) promoted the importance of the British bacon sarnie—as a pig farmer, long may that continue. However, when we have that bacon sarnie, I sense that it might not be British bacon in there at the moment. We need to make sure we get back to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) reminded us of the support the food industry provided during the pandemic. Indeed, the industry is now very much stepping up to the plate so that we are well prepared for the cost of living crisis and the challenge over this coming winter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who is probably the Member I have known longest in this House, very much welcomed the Minister as being a round peg in a round hole. My right hon. Friend also reminded me that—Father, I have sinned—we do have a solar farm on our farm, but he made his point well. I was a surveyor before I came to this place; in those days, it was much clearer cut. We knew what we could put and where. I sense that the planning system has got blurred at the edges, and we need to address that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) went all French, which I never thought would happen, but he made a good point. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) emphasised the importance of short supply chains; her point was made well, too. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), with whom I work very closely in an East Anglian environment, highlighted that local food production is a model that we can and should build on. He emphasised the environmental, economic and health reasons for that. He also reminded me of something I omitted: the great work done by care farms. In my constituency, we have the Pathways Care Farm; just outside it is the Clinks Care Farm. They are doing great work—in not only food production, but supporting people and getting them back on their feet.
Finally, it is great to see the Minister in his place. Let us swap the South Molton sheep sales for next year’s Suffolk Show.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of support for local food infrastructure.
Coastal Communities
(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
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of coastal communities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on coastal communities, and in my capacity as the MP for the beautiful constituency of Hastings and Rye, I am leading this debate on the future of coastal communities, and I am grateful for the support received from Members on both sides of the House.
Coastal communities are integral to the UK’s environmental, social and economic wellbeing. The covid-19 pandemic profoundly impacted on our coastal communities, exposing and exacerbating long-standing social and economic structural challenges, which need an urgent and co-ordinated response for there to be a sustainable recovery. Coastal communities are also the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, with erosion and flooding posing an ever greater threat to both the built and natural environments.
We have long been a proud maritime nation and historically reliant on our coastal communities to help deliver national prosperity, but today too many of them face shared challenges and disproportionately high levels of deprivation. These communities have enormous potential, which can be unleashed with ambitious vision, partnership working and the right investment from both the public and private sectors. Both Labour and Conservative Governments have been alerted to the challenges of coastal communities over the years—lots of reports, but not enough real action.
In 2007, a Communities and Local Government Committee report on coastal towns highlighted the shared characteristics of coastal communities, including poor-quality housing, deprivation, the inward migration of older people, and the nature of coastal economies. The report said that coastal towns have too often been on the margins of central Government regeneration policy, with its focus on inner cities. The report led to the creation of the coastal communities fund.
Later, in 2019, the House of Lords Select Committee on Regenerating Seaside Towns and Communities published a report entitled “The future of seaside towns”, highlighting familiar challenges and making a number of recommendations. The challenges highlighted included the lack of transport connectivity, poor education standards and attainment, skill shortages, high levels of population transience and disproportionately high levels of people claiming sickness and disability benefits. The recommendations identified how regeneration could be supported in coastal towns, including through a dedicated source of funding specifically for coastal communities beyond the completion of the coastal communities fund.
We have seen that fund replaced with the UK shared prosperity fund, but it is disappointing that many coastal local authorities, such as Rother District Council and Hastings Borough Council, received the minimum amount of £1 million—a quarter of the amount received by inland Chorley in Lancashire, which received over £4 million, or Cannock Chase, which received over £3 million. Often the funding pots are competitive. The APPG for the south east, which I also chair, published a report this year called “Financing the future—what does levelling up mean for South East England?” One of the report’s recommendations is that levelling up must address the issue of short and long-term local government finance, with an emphasis on certainty and flexibility—not one-off and often competitive funding pots.
To really plan for the future of our coastal communities, we need long-term strategies and locally led plans. Improvements to coastal transport networks and targeted investment for school improvement programmes were also recommended in the Lords Committee report, hence my consistent campaigning for a faster service from London via Ashford, linking Rye, Hastings, Bexhill and Eastbourne not only to each other but to London. That is essential for better connectivity, which will in turn encourage and boost local employment opportunities and economic growth.
I welcome the new education investment area funding for East Sussex—Hastings has been designated a priority education investment area—but we must do more. Education and skills are vital tools in social mobility and are essential for economic wellbeing and social inclusion. It is vital for economic growth that education and skills evolve with the needs of the modern labour market. In that regard, our coastal communities have enormous potential in terms of the green revolution, but they are not being given the focus needed to unleash that potential and become a greater resource for the UK.
In 2020, the Office for National Statistics produced a significant study of coastal communities. It highlighted what we already know about the challenges, including the prevalence of deprivation, slower employment and population growth—even a decline—and an ageing population. A poll commissioned by Maritime UK revealed that coastal communities are set to lose 49% of their young people amid employment concerns. Jobs were cited as the overwhelming reason why Maritime UK and the Local Government Association coastal special interest group jointly published their “Coastal Powerhouse Manifesto” in September last year, urging the Government to form a coherent plan for the coast and highlighting a number of areas in which action must be taken to catalyse investment, level up coastal communities and realise the potential of all the UK’s coastal regions.
To date, coastal regeneration funding has largely focused on heritage, recreational and arts projects. Those are important, but further specific action is clearly required to generate higher wages and higher-skilled jobs. Maritime UK’s “Coastal Powerhouse Manifesto” sets out proposals to extend freeport benefits to all coastal areas, boost connectivity to the rest of the country, develop new skills in coastal communities and install a shore power network across the coast to provide the infrastructure to charge tomorrow’s electric vessels. It is also worth noting the research and recommendations of the KMPG and Demos report “Movers and Stayers: Localising power to level up towns”, which was published in July.
Most pertinently, last year, Professor Chris Whitty published his annual report on health disparities in coastal communities. Life expectancy, healthy life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy are all lower in coastal communities. The standardised mortality ratios for a range of conditions, including preventable mortality, are significantly higher. Life expectancy at birth in Central St Leonards ward in my constituency is 11.2 years lower for males, and 8.7 years lower for females, than in Crowborough North East in the rural, more affluent Wealden district.
Such case studies consistently emphasise that coastal communities face not only challenges with the recruitment and retention of health and social care staff, but knock-on challenges with service delivery. Last week, I visited the Parchment Trust, a local charity in Hastings that provides occupational and day-care services for people with learning and physical disabilities. Those at the trust do amazing work, but they struggle with recruiting and retaining staff—largely because of the pay they can offer. East Sussex County Council, which commissions services from the trust, has limited resources but an above-average population of elderly people and people with social care needs, and that is not reflected in local authority funding formulas.
Professor Whitty clearly outlines in his report that tackling the underlying drivers of poor health—including deprivation, poor educational attainment, housing, alcohol and/or substance misuse, homelessness and rough sleeping, underdeveloped transport infrastructure and a lack of diversity in jobs and coastal economies—and focusing proportionate and appropriate NHS and care resources to provide for physical and mental health and social care needs will help to prevent ill health in the long term. That will benefit not just our coastal communities but the whole UK.
High levels of deprivation, driven in part by major and long-standing challenges with local economies and employment, are important reasons for the poor health outcomes in these communities. Tackling deprivation is key, and although the levelling-up White Paper articulates how policy interventions will improve opportunity and boost livelihoods across the country, it does not specifically target coastal communities. For the Government’s spending, taxation, investment and regeneration policy to bring about meaningful changes in these communities, they must be at the heart of the Government’s levelling-up plans.
However, we must not focus solely on the challenges facing coastal communities, because they also offer fantastic and unique opportunities. Coastal communities have unleashed nature-based potential both on land and in our oceans—for renewable energy industries and in the fight against climate change, which can also drive social and economic benefits. Our coasts and seas contain some of the UK’s most varied ecosystems, and investing in coastal restoration and adaptation projects offers low-income coastal communities opportunities that yield financial returns on investments, create jobs, stimulate local economies and regenerate and revitalise the health of our ecosystems.
We might look, for example, at the work my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is doing with the Sussex Wildlife Trust on restoring the kelp forest off the coast of Worthing, which is helping to capture carbon. Restoring and maintaining blue carbon habitats in our seas could create jobs directly in conservation, as well as indirectly in nature-based tourism, helping to level up our coastal communities even further.
Coastal communities have their own distinctive and unique role to play in our regional and sub-regional economies, as well as in the national one. We must ensure that all places create and share in prosperity, so that everyone has the opportunity to enjoy a higher quality of life. If given the necessary social, economic and environmental support and investment, our coastal communities can be an even greater national resource, rather than a problem requiring a solution. It is therefore vital that levelling up recognises the unique challenges that coastal communities face and responds to them with meaningful policy action. It is also vital that this Government recognise the unique opportunities that coastal communities present to us economically, environmentally and socially and respond to them with meaningful policy action.
To address the challenges and exploit the opportunities of coastal communities, we need a dedicated Minister for coastal communities who can work across Government, supported by a national strategy for coastal communities and the reinstatement of a cross-departmental working group for the coast. This much-needed recognition and investment from the Government will help to secure the future of the coast and generate improved economic resilience and environmental sustainability through creating better connectivity, economic diversity and stronger communities and by restoring pride in our coastal identity as an island nation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. There are actually quite a few more people standing than submitted to speak through the Speaker’s Office, so I am afraid I will have to impose a time limit of three and a half minutes with immediate effect. We will see how that goes—it might shrink further.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I have the great pleasure of representing Wirral West, which forms the north-western part of the Wirral peninsula. The coastal towns and villages of Meols, Hoylake, West Kirby, Caldy and Thurstaston offer stunning views across the Dee estuary to Hilbre island and the Welsh hills in the distance, or out across Liverpool bay to Crosby, Formby and Southport. It is an area well known for the opportunities it provides for sport and leisure activities, both for local people and people from much farther afield.
Last Saturday, I visited the Royal National Lifeboat Institution station in Hoylake for the West Kirby and Hoylake RNLI meet and greet day. It was a fantastic event, and provided the opportunity for visitors to climb on board the lifeboat and the hovercraft, explore the lifeboat station and meet the staff and volunteers. I heard about the rescues they perform, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the immense courage, selflessness, skill and strength that they show in saving lives at sea. The RNLI is massively important to the local community, which supports it a great deal and is rightly proud of the work it does. Standing in the lifeboat station and looking out across the beach caused me to reflect on the wide range of water sports and activities that take place there, including walking dogs on the beach, riding horses, going out to Hilbre island to look at the seals, sailing, kayaking, paddleboarding and so forth.
The coast is a fantastic amenity for locals and visitors alike, and it is heavily reliant on one key ingredient: the sea. The quality of water matters, but it is at risk from sewage. I am concerned that it may now also be at risk from industrialisation, because this morning the Prime Minister announced that she will lift the moratorium on extracting shale gas. My constituents will be extremely concerned about that announcement.
The natural world is immensely important to the character of Wirral West. Back in 2013, under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government, a conditional licence was granted for underground coal gasification in the Dee estuary. Like fracking, it is a risky technology for extracting fossil fuel. I have led a campaign against UCG in the Dee since 2013, and public opposition to the industrialisation of the Dee off West Kirby and Hoylake is extremely strong. The estuary is a site of special scientific interest and a place of international importance for bird life. It is important that we protect the quality of the ecosystem, so my constituents will be alarmed by the Prime Minister’s announcement this morning. I call on the Government to think again, restore the ban on fracking and put in place an outright ban on UCG too.
Sewage is also of great concern. One of my constituents wrote to me about her experience of kayaking. She said that she
“noticed a horrible scum on the water”,
which entered her kayak. She added that
“the evidence of raw sewage was obvious”.
Given that the Prime Minister was responsible for cutting millions of pounds of funding earmarked for tackling water pollution during her time as Environment Secretary, people have every right to be concerned that the Government will not take this issue seriously.
Margaret Greenwood
I do not have enough time, so I will carry on.
I ask the Minister to respond to that point. The Government recently published their storm overflows discharge reduction plan, but although it appears to provide for an increase in the monitoring of overflows, the question remains whether the Environment Agency and Ofwat will then use that data to take tough action. I call on the Minister to set out how the Government intend to address sewage on our beach, UCG and fracking.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I ask Members not to take interventions, because we are up against time.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for her excellent speech and for bringing forward this debate. I reiterate her request for a coastal Minister, as the issues we experience around the coast are unifying. As we look to level up this great country under the new Administration, I very much hope that we can move away from the north-south divide and level up around the coast.
The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) did not take my intervention, but I also represent a very beautiful coastal constituency and I have been concerned about water quality this summer. It is very important that we recognise the difference between algal blooms and sewage discharge. My constituency has not had sewage discharge this summer, but we have had significant algal blooms due to the heat.
I do not want to focus on sewage today. I want to use the opportunity of having the levelling-up Minister here to talk about coastal communities and the issues that are particularly prevalent in the Devon and Cornwall peninsula following the pandemic, with the immense shortage of affordable housing that our local residents can move into and purchase.
Our beautiful area has seen a surge in short-term holiday lets and the second homes market. I very much hope that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport consultation on holiday lets registration goes ahead. I also hope that there are opportunities in the Minister’s Department to impose planning restrictions to reduce the number of holiday lets that come to market. When new properties are built, a change of use should be required if they are to become a short-term holiday let. Communities such as mine need homes for people to live and work in. We love our tourists and we would never want to stop them coming, but our housing market has got completely out of balance.
In North Devon, we are not the most productive, unfortunately, and our wages are really very low. Full-time workers in North Devon currently earn £13.29 per hour, while the south-west average is £14.67 and the Great Britain average is £15.65. Our property prices have shot up by over 22%. We are the second fastest growing property price area in the country, but our house building rate has not grown that much and the vast majority of what is being sold is going in the form of second homes or holiday lets. If this continues, we will no longer have coastal communities; we will have winter ghost towns. We need urgent intervention through the levelling-up White Paper to tackle the issue.
Ilfracombe in my constituency is regularly defined, unfortunately, as being home to the poorest wards in the whole of Devon, and among the 5% poorest wards in the entire country. The issues in towns such as Ilfracombe have been documented for decades, yet we seem unable to grasp the fact that these things are happening all the way around our coast. Each coastal MP will have similar stories to mine. Life expectancy for people in Ilfracombe is 10 years less than that for those in the south of the county.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. We are not taking interventions, and the time limit is about to vanish.
Selaine Saxby
I will end by saying again that I hope that, in addition to the establishment of a coastal Minister, we should reinstate the coastal communities fund, so that these fantastic places to live and work can continue to be just that.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on securing this important debate.
For too long, the specific needs of our coastal communities have been neglected and their voices continue to be ignored. Many of our once proud resorts are tired and lacking in investment, while many people are locked into low-paid, no-prospect jobs.
Along the north-east coast, we have a particular problem that is devastating our marine ecosystem and the fishing industry from Hartlepool to Whitby, as well as hitting tourism. Dead crustaceans and other wildlife continue to be washed up on our shores, and the catches of many local fishermen are down by 90%. Some have told me about their catches. One put down 1,100 pots but caught only seven velvet crabs; he told me that he would normally catch thousands a day. A father and son went out fishing recently and had their worst day ever. Normally, they would have caught 80 kg of lobster and 250 kg of crab. Instead, they caught 5 kg of lobster and 30 kg of crab—less than 10% of their usual haul. Of the catches that are secured, I am told that buyers are now turning elsewhere and prefer to buy from areas further south, because too many of the crustaceans in our area are weak or already dead.
In a Westminster Hall debate that I secured at the end of June, I was told by the then Minister, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), that this issue would remain at the very top of the Government’s agenda, but clearly that is not the case. At a time when fishermen are already feeling the economic bite of declining catches and reduced economic opportunities, they have had to fork out from their own pockets and crowdfund investigations in order to try to understand what was happening. They commissioned Tim Deere-Jones, an independent marine pollution consultant with 30 years of experience, who said that there is “no empirical evidence” for the Government’s preferred algal bloom theory as the cause of the problem. Instead, he suggested that the cause is linked to the chemical pyridine, because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ own data indicated that quantities of it were over 70 times higher in crab samples taken from Saltburn and Seaton than in a control sample from Penzance.
I know that the results of an independently led university investigation will soon be available, but I can advise the House today that its very early results appear to support the pyridine theory. Our coastal community believes that this warrants further, comprehensive investigations by the Environment Agency into the presence of pyridine in the Tees and the possible consequences of that for marine life. I ask the agency to engage even more with our local universities when the report comes out.
Many believe that dredging is resulting in dangerous substances entering the sea and the Government will be aware that there is considerable anxiety locally about dredging in connection with the Teesworks development, which we all want to succeed. In a statement about the dead crustaceans, the South Tees Development Corporation said that
“all official scientific investigations to date have ruled out dredging”
as the cause of the problem. However, in a Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science report about the South Bank Quay dredging, its officer notes that
“the data reviewed from previous studies and from desk-based sources provide an understanding of the shellfish features in this region, although it is acknowledged that these data do not represent the exact area potentially being impacted by the present project.”
Our sea is dying. I need the Government to tell us what they will do to find out exactly what is causing it and what they will do about it.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for securing this important debate on the future of coastal communities and for her excellent suggestion that there should be a Minister for coastal communities. I will add that an island Minister would be good, too.
I will address three points: why coastal communities are special, why they need support, and how we can support them. I represent Ynys Môn, the isle of Anglesey, a unique and beautiful place We have a huge seasonal tourist industry. It is a fabulous place to visit, and I encourage all to do so. Indeed, it is such a special place that my Ynys Môn constituency will have protected status at the next general election, something for which I successfully fought.
However, the Anglesey that visitors see in the summer is not the Anglesey that local people experience year round. Outside the holiday season, many shops and restaurants shut their doors, or struggle through, and the further across the island one travels from the mainland, the harder those challenges become. We have one of the lowest rates of gross value added of any constituency in the UK.
Holyhead, where I live, is the second busiest ro-ro port in the UK, and a major route to Ireland. It sits at the far end of Anglesey and contains some of the most deprived areas in the UK, but it needs a different response from similarly deprived inland areas. To visualise why, take a map and draw a circle of 5-mile radius around Holyhead: over three quarters of that is sea. Now, I like fish, but they do not set up businesses, they do not employ people and they do not provide aspirational role models for our young people. Our towns once had bustling town centres. Holyhead used to have not one but two Clarks shoe shops, and now it has none. The loss of major employers such as Wylfa and Anglesey Aluminium has decimated local employment, which is why so many people end up in low-paid seasonal jobs, or leave to seek careers elsewhere—draining our communities and taking away our precious Welsh language and our culture.
How can we support coastal communities and give them a thriving future, with opportunities for local young people to stay, work and raise families? We need to recognise that coastal communities face unique challenges and deserve targeted support. I recently supported Isle of Anglesey County Council’s levelling-up fund bid for £17 million to regenerate Holyhead town centre. That investment would put the town centre back in the hands of the community, funding heritage projects to attract locals and visitors, supporting new businesses and offering secure, quality employment to our young people. However, the criteria for general funds, such as the levelling-up fund, usually give no specific weight to the special needs of coastal communities. The way to secure the future for coastal communities is to recognise their unique needs and provide targeted support. The young people of Ynys Môn deserve the same local opportunities as those in other parts of the UK.
I have spoken about why coastal communities are special, why they need support and how we can support them. I am honoured to represent Ynys Môn. The people of Ynys Môn put their trust and faith in me, and it is a privilege and responsibility that I take very seriously. Anglesey is also my home. It is one of the best constituencies in the UK. My father had to leave Wales to find work; I am working hard to ensure that young people right across Anglesey have a future, and that that future is on Anglesey, a coastal island community. Diolch yn fawr.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on introducing the debate. I am a Member for a coastal constituency. Indeed, I live a stone’s throw away from the breathtaking view of Strangford lough. I enjoy the animal life and the majesty of the coast, but I also have first-hand experience of the pitfalls of coastal erosion. That is what I want to focus on.
Moneys have been allocated from Westminster to Northern Ireland in the past for coastal erosion. Professor Andrew Cooper and Professor Derek Jackson stated in 2018:
“A strategic approach to shoreline management is urgently needed to address the challenges of marine flooding and erosion: current shoreline management is reactive and poorly structured and continuation of current practice will lead to coastal degradation and loss of amenity value. There is an absence of adequate information on which to base coastal decision-making.”
With that in mind, we cannot even quantify the issues unless we have the information on how the coast works: the rates of change, the sources of coastal material, the patterns of sand movement, the impact of storms and post-storm recovery along the coastline. Establishing a coastal observatory for Northern Ireland is critical for us. I very much look forward hearing from the Minister, and I wish her well in her role. It is my desire that the moneys set aside for levelling up will help us in Northern Ireland to develop this conversation, and develop strategic action that we can take part in.
Being part of a coastal community does not just mean that we get fresh sea air, which we do. It does not just mean that we have great views, which we do. It means more than that. It can also mean being socially isolated. A journey that is no problem for those who can nip on a local bus in town to a hospital appointment can become an all-day excursion for those who live in a rural area. Those are the issues of isolation and the problems that need to be addressed in any approach to coastal communities.
Coastal towns are more likely to have higher levels of deprivation—I know that that is the case in Northern Ireland. They are also prone to be home to older generations. For instance, 30% of the resident population in small seaside towns were aged over 65 in 2018, compared with only 22% in small non-coastal towns. That is replicated in my constituency of Strangford. The fishing village of Portavogie, which the shadow spokesperson for the Scots Nats, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), visited some time ago, once had two fish-producing factories, as well as hundreds of fishing crew, but now we have a fraction of those jobs, and we are still seeking the post-Brexit economic boom.
The coastal communities fund has done some tremendous work supporting funding for volunteers and employment opportunities for vulnerable people, parents and families returning to education. It can help restore tourist attractions, business units creating employment and an environmental apprenticeship scheme. My constituency has seen some of those small things happening with the restoration of the Ballywalter lime kilns in my constituency and with sporting projects.
Looking to the future, the Minister, who is responsible for this and for helping us in Northern Ireland, should speak in favour of a holistic, UK-wide approach to ensure that every community feels the warmth of the coastal fund and any improvement scheme.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
There is a new time limit of three minutes, and the first person who is going to use that brilliantly is Robin Millar.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
Thank you, I think, Dr Huq. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I also thank the other hon. Members present for their contributions; there have been too many for me to refer to in my own short speech. Finally, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on securing this debate, and on her valuable work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on coastal communities.
The UK has some of the most beautiful coastal settings in the world, and I am proud that Aberconwy is among them. However, although coastal communities are full of wonderful things and remind us of holidays on the beach, eating ice creams and enjoying the British summer weather, they are no stranger to complex challenges. During recent decades, our coastal communities have disproportionately topped the list of those areas in the United Kingdom most vulnerable to economic and environmental changes and shocks.
Just as much as Aberconwy has the beauty, charm and heritage of our coastal communities, it faces many of the challenges, and they have been compounded by the current energy crisis. That link is where I will focus my remaining remarks. I welcome the Government’s statement this morning, ensuring that the average household in Aberconwy will pay no more than £2,500 per year for their energy bills for the next two years from October. I also welcome the support that will be provided to businesses over the next six months. The interventions ease fears, protect jobs and promote growth.
In north Wales we have some of the most expensive electricity supply costs in the UK. At the same time, we have vast potential to produce clean energy and reduce energy costs. We can secure our energy and reduce energy prices in the long term through addressing that. I welcome the Government’s support and commitment to maximise energy production, such as nuclear and renewables, to make the UK a net energy exporter by 2040.
We are familiar with energy production in Aberconwy. Tidal range has the capacity to deliver predictable, large-scale generation with none of the problems of intermittence associated with other renewable technologies. The proposed north Wales tidal lagoon would have a generating capacity of more than 2 GW, create 20,000 jobs, generate clean electricity reliably for a century, and provide protection to our exposed coastline.
Such a scheme and the new nuclear power station at Wylfa mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) offer long-term and sustainable economic benefits for our north Wales coastal communities. They offer the potential of transformative investment, providing constituents and communities with security and hope for the future. They generate both economic resilience and environmental sustainability in the long term. They go way beyond short-term relief and tax-and-spend economics. They exemplify investment for growth and are a long-term solution to much more than the challenges of energy. They can deliver for our nation and, more importantly, for our valuable and vulnerable coastal communities.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
I represent Waveney, the most easterly constituency in the United Kingdom. Lowestoft, the principal town, was formerly the fishing capital of the southern North sea. Unfortunately, over the last 40 to 50 years, the economy has declined significantly and we have deep pockets of deprivation, which are exacerbated by the current cost of living crisis. However, the community is coming together to support those people who will face real challenges and hardship in the course of the next few months.
I want to emphasise that there is cause for optimism. CEFAS has its headquarters and labs in the town, and they are being refurbished and rebuilt. East Coast College has opened the energy skills centre, ready for the renewables opportunities off our coast. The Gull Wing bridge—the long-awaited third crossing—is under construction, as is the Lowestoft flood defence scheme. We are about to start work on various town deal initiatives. Over the last three years there has been public investment of £250 million in the local town. That is very important, and I sense it is going to bring about meaningful change, with an economy based on renewables, energy and a revived fishing industry, as well as tourism and leisure.
I want briefly to highlight three issues where coastal communities do lose out. They relate to Government funding. The first is education funding. Suffolk is a member of the F40 group—it is not a group to be proud to be a member of—which is made up of the 40 local education authorities that receive the lowest amount of funding from Whitehall. Coastal communities have real educational challenges. That iniquity needs to be addressed. On local government funding, Suffolk, like many coastal communities, is a two-tier county authority. Suffolk receives £310 per head, compared with the £560 per head received by metropolitan areas, and the £729 per head for inner London. Those issues need to be addressed. Similarly, our enterprise zone needs to be rebalanced and reallocated land. I am sure that I will take that up with the Minister in due course.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. Having been relieved of my ministerial duties just a few hours ago—shortly after responding to your question in the Chamber this morning—I could not resist the opportunity to contribute to this debate on my return to the Back Benches. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on securing this debate, just so that I could return to speaking after a while of not being able to do so.
I represent a constituency with two coasts—it is one of only three such constituencies in the whole country—so the matter of coastal communities is very close to my heart. Representing a Cornish constituency, I find that very often the image portrayed of life in Cornwall is idyllic. The series running at the moment on Channel 4, “Finding the Cornish Dream”, is a slightly warped version of what life if actually like for many people in Cornwall, because there is no doubt that coastal communities in Cornwall are among the most disadvantaged in our country. That is why it is so important that we have debates such as this, and that we continue to remind the Government of the importance of supporting our coastal communities to ensure that they can thrive and be prosperous in the future.
I add my voice to those calling for a Minister for coastal communities. Just after the last election, I had a discussion with the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), about the need to put in place a Minister for coastal communities. I actually volunteered to take that role, but unfortunately the pandemic took over and we never managed to conclude that discussion. Perhaps the new Prime Minister would like to consider appointing a Minister for coastal communities, and if she really needs someone to do it, I am more than happy to return to Government.
There are a number of challenges that we need to face in supporting our coastal communities. We are too heavily reliant of tourism and hospitality, as important as that sector is. Much of our employment is seasonal, so we need to help our coastal communities to diversify their economic opportunities. I say to the Minister that one thing that should be done for coastal communities in Cornwall is address the biggest issue that we face—that of housing. Housing is unaffordable for most local people. The impact of the pandemic on the holiday let market and the increase in the number of holiday lets mean that too many people in Cornwall cannot find anywhere to live. Businesses are affected because they cannot find staff, because people are willing to come and work in Cornwall but cannot find anywhere to live. I know the Government are consulting on what to do about holiday lets, but I urge the Minister to make it a priority and ensure the Government act on holiday lets, so that local people in Cornwall can find somewhere to live.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, and I thank my near neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart). Three minutes is not enough time to do justice to the beauty of my coastal community, but Debussy composed “La Mer” there, so I will rest there. Nor is it enough time to do justice to some of its challenges, so I will focus on just two aspects: climate change and transport. I put it to the Minister that therein lie both opportunity and threat, and it is all about the sea.
Those rising sea levels have caused consternation and concern and have inspired quite ambitious plans from the Environment Agency. Eastbourne will potentially see the most ambitious coastal defence scheme rolled out across the land, with over £100 million of investment to secure the town’s future. I thank the Minister for her and her predecessor’s work on this particular issue because within that vital defensive work there are countless opportunities to add value and bring about regeneration. Whether in aquaculture and new visions for growing kelp and mussel beds or in safety, lighting and access to the seafront, there are many opportunities for us to exploit, so I look forward to continuing to work with DEFRA on that enormously important scheme.
Coastal communities rise or fall by their transport connectivity. As my hon. Friend said, there have been many reports and much good work has been done in Eastbourne on roads, rail and air. I put on the record the absolutely driving need for road investment on the A27, for the high-speed rail signalled by my hon. Friend to connect us to London, the north and the continent, and for Gatwick’s second runway, which is hugely significant for a coastal community that is dependent on tourism.
I have managed to confine myself to just six specific asks in my remaining time. There should be an emphasis on that fairer funding formula. Eastbourne actually has an average age of 45—contrary to Daily Mail reporting—but we have a high percentage of older people, and we need that enhanced level of funding to provide social care. There should be active promotion with Visit England for the year of the coast 2023. I echo my earlier points on transport. VAT was defining previously; it could be again. There should be a Minister for the coast, because the issue crosses all Departments—Health, Transport, Business, Treasury. It could be a strategic post.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on securing the debate. Although I no longer represent a coastal community, my constituency borders such communities and many of my constituents work in them and rely on their economic, cultural and social success. I also wrote a chapter called “Coastal Communities in the 21st Century” in the 2019 book “Britain Beyond Brexit”, edited by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman).
My first point is that coastal communities are diverse in population and economy size, and there is no one size fits all. Communities in Cornwall and North Devon are very different from those in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Member for Hastings and Rye and for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell). However, they do have one thing in common: the Government’s productivity drivers and initiatives on skills, innovation, competition, enterprise and investment work less well in coastal communities. That is largely due to the hub-and-spoke nature of the UK’s infrastructure, as resources are focused on the major arterial routes out of large conurbations.
Since the book was published, we have had the covid pandemic. That has meant that digital connectivity has been an issue in many areas, not least remote coastal communities where the problems are not only with broadband but with mobile coverage, as many people on holiday in Cornwall—including myself—have found. However, working from home has increased dramatically, so improving digital connectivity is one of the most cost-effective ways of providing incentives for businesses and people to move out of central conurbations and into coastal communities.
I believe that transport is the largest barrier for coastal communities. Those communities are often at the end of the line, meaning that cars are the only way to get around. It takes the same amount of time as in the Victorian era to get a train from London to many coastal communities, which is not good enough. Even to places such as Portsmouth, it still takes one hour and 40 minutes to travel 70 miles by train. The fastest time from London to Great Yarmouth is two hours and 38 minutes to travel just 136 miles, and Newquay in Cornwall—only 256 miles away—is just under five hours by train. By contrast, it takes two hours to travel the 200 miles between Manchester and London, and from Birmingham, it takes one hour and 29 minutes to go 126 miles. Members can imagine how galling it is to hear about HS2 train times if you live by the sea.
It is just as bad to travel between coastal communities, too. It takes two hours and 40 minutes to travel the 58 miles between Great Yarmouth and Felixstowe; sometimes, it is possible to cycle those routes faster. That is the crux of it—poor transport links and poor digital connectivity are two very negative forces pushing down on our coastal communities. One is, sadly, very expensive to fix; one is much cheaper, so I hope that Government policy is directed towards digital connectivity and bringing coastal communities into the 21st century. That would at least take one negative away while longer-term transport solutions are found.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on securing this debate. I pity Members of Parliament who do not get to represent coastal communities: along my 58 miles of coastline, I am fortunate to have large towns such as Brixham, Salcombe and Dartmouth, as well as the surrounding villages. It is a bit of a mixed bag: in Brixham, we see huge opportunity coming through a growing fishing sector that had a record year last year and is on course to have a record year this year. It sends much of its fine produce up to Grimsby and the processing plants there, which is very welcome. However, to make that opportunity go further, we need to ensure that Brixham secures funding from the levelling-up fund, which will enlarge the harbour and support the high-tech businesses that are based there, such as the photonics industry.
One of the biggest problems I see in my patch is that of GPs and rural healthcare. Far too many minor injury units and cottage hospitals are closing, and too many GPs are unable to give as much access to residents as necessary; access to dentists is also poor. We need to look at how we roll out better rural healthcare, a point that is most keenly felt in coastal communities. The point about bus routes, which has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), is well placed: we have terrible transport links at the moment. We need to make good use of the reduction in bus fares that has just been announced by the Government, which is going to take place in January and last for three months, with low-price fares to encourage people back on to the transport networks. It is a chicken-and-egg scenario: the only way we are going to get more bus routes is by getting more people to use buses in the first instance.
My third point is about fishing and aquaculture. Since all Members present are coastal MPs, I encourage them all to join the all-party parliamentary group for shellfish aquaculture, because aquaculture can increase opportunities within our coastal communities, as well as help to sequester carbon and produce sustainable food. One of the largest mussel farms in Europe is off my coastline, and it is doing extraordinary work.
Finally, turning to the point that was so well made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), housing is a big problem. In Salcombe, the average house price is £800,000, so there are no homes available for local people, and the story is similar in Brixham and in Dartmouth. We need to build houses with covenants—houses that are there for local people at locally affordable rents—and we need to do so quickly, because quite frankly, my communities are being hollowed out by those extraordinarily high prices. There is a lot to do, and I know that as a group, we can work on a cross-party basis to make sure we get the very best for our communities.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Finally from the Back Benches, Natalie Elphicke.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on securing this important debate. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as an unremunerated director of the not-for-profit Housing and Finance Institute, which has put forward a strong case for coastal renaissance in its “Turning the Tide” research paper.
We are an island nation, so it is somewhat surprising that so many policies, and the funding that goes with them, appear better designed to support our big cities than to support our coastal towns and villages. Coastal communities have a different design and construct from other areas. They are sometimes described as the end of the line, but in Dover and Deal we like to say, “Welcome to the beginning of Britain”. However, that end-of-the-line thinking dominates Whitehall. It is extremely damaging to the allocation of much-needed infrastructure investment, and to business, as whole swathes of business opportunities are moved to the so-called central belt in the midlands or even further north.
My constituency is the gateway to and from the European continent, and it is vital that investment in it is supported through its continued and future growth, which will benefit the country as a whole. For Dover and Deal, that means investment in the A2 upgrade, which is part of the roads investment programme, in port health and in port border infrastructure, which is the subject of a levelling-up bid from Kent County Council, and in our people through the education and skills necessary to make the most of the opportunities that have arisen since we left the European Union, and to reflect a modern, digital and creative economy. That is the subject of a second levelling-up bid, led by Dover District Council, and I commend both bids to the Minister.
In the time I have remaining, I will focus on coastal community deprivation. In the 2015 deprivation indices, more than two thirds of the 30 most deprived small areas were in coastal communities, and nine of the 10 most deprived small areas were in seaside places. Rolling forward to the snapshot of the latest available figures, which are from 2019, 25 of the 30 most deprived small areas are in coastal communities, and all of the top 10 are in our small coastal areas.
A notable feature of coastal communities is a high incidence of the private rented sector, as well as a lack of new or affordable housing. The proportion of private rented sector housing increases in a gradient across all the quartiles as the average multiple deprivation score increases. Additionally, there is a significant incidence of poor-quality housing, which has a causative effect on other indices of deprivation. Prioritising our coastal communities and their housing is essential. Policymaking needs to move on from the Victorian industrial focus and focus on our modern age.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
If our three Front Benchers keep to nine minutes each, Sally-Ann Hart will get to sum up at the end.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, and I shall do my best to stick within the guidelines that you have given. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on securing the debate. I understand that she hails originally from Northumberland, a county that has a particularly special place in my heart, not least because it is where I have my earliest memories of seaside holidays in places such as Berwick-upon-Tweed and Seahouses. It is certainly a place that means a great deal to me.
Throughout the debate we have heard a great deal about Members’ huge affection for our coastal communities, their way of life and what they have to offer as places to live and visit, and as places where people can work and raise families. Sadly, as we have heard, they are also places that face particular economic challenges. Despite the prosperity that openness to the sea can bring or has previously brought, our coastal communities can experience particular combinations of economic and social fragility. For example, they often have a heavy dependency on tourism and seasonal labour to take advantage of the economic opportunities. There is also a heavy dependency on a relatively limited number of industries in many cases, and such places are more prone to high levels of unemployment. Their attractiveness and proximity to the sea mean that there is real pressure on house prices and a lack of affordability, particularly for young people—all of which can feed into a cycle of decline that builds in business fragilities. Coastal communities are also at the sharp end of the effects of climate change, including coastal erosion and the impact on biodiversity. They are key to the success of our future energy policies, delivering energy security and tackling climate change.
My own constituency goes much further inland than it does up the coast, but I do have a very special, beautiful piece of coastline, from the northern part of the city of Aberdeen to the nature reserves up past Collieston. There has been considerable debate about not just onshore planning decisions but marine spatial planning issues, for example on the interaction between biodiversity on land and the development pressures for housing or, in one particular case, a golf course closely associated with a former occupant of the White House. There is a constant tension between the infrastructure that is needed for offshore energy, whether hydrocarbons or other types, and other demands on the sea, such as our traditional fishing industry.
A good local example of an extremely successful development is the Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm, also known as the European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre, which is made up of 11 offshore turbines just off the coast of Aberdeen and produces enough energy to power the entirety of the city. I had the great pleasure of going out on a boat just a couple of weeks ago to visit it. It also has a community benefit fund that supports community projects.
Beyond that, there is the ScotWind project. Scotland’s current peak energy demand is around 5 GW. ScotWind is set to allow for a capacity of nearly 25 GW. Certainly, our coastal communities are at the forefront of that energy revolution, as well as the development of hydrogen, as the means we might use to store excess capacity that is generated and not required in that moment. It is incredibly frustrating, at a time when we are experiencing some of the highest energy prices in Europe, for people to be able to look out of their windows and see the infrastructure but not be able to see the benefit of that infrastructure on bills due to the way we choose to structure our energy markets.
There is an elephant in the room here—the impact of Brexit, both directly and in the tardy nature of any benefits that might come through. I think particularly of our fishing industry in Scotland, but it also impacts our wider food and drink sector. Let me just take the example of langoustines. They are the most important shellfish species in terms of landed value and social economic support. In 2019, more than £91 million-worth of langoustines were landed in Scotland, making it the second most valuable stock after mackerel. We exported about 18,000 metric tonnes from the UK to the EU in 2010. That figure had halved by 2019.
I was interested in the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on the impact on the Portavogie community, which I had the great pleasure of visiting with him. There are similarly sized communities along the north coast of Scotland, where processors are not only experiencing trade barriers to exporting but facing energy bills that have increased nearly fivefold. If that is a worry for the processing sector, we can only imagine the worries the catching sector has as a result. If they are unable to supply the processors, the market has gone, and the opportunities for fishing will be exported entirely overseas.
On funding for our coastal communities, Aberdeenshire benefited hugely from structural funding from the European Union. Between 2007 and 2012, for example, it received more than £23 million of European funding, leveraging in total funding to the value of £60 million, from funds such as the European regional development fund, the social fund, the fisheries fund, LEADER and Interreg. In contrast, the Aberdeenshire Council allocation from the shared prosperity fund for the next period is only £8 million. There is a great deal of catching up to do.
In my final minute, let me go back to a previous political life as a local authority councillor in Aberdeenshire, when I had the great pleasure of serving on the North Sea Commission and was vice-chair and then chair of the marine resources group, which concerns itself with themes such as achieving a productive and sustainable North sea, a climate-neutral North sea region, a connected North sea region and a smart region. It brought forward many policy initiatives and allowed regional representatives from Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and Scotland to come together to discuss those shared opportunities and challenges.
I think I am correct in saying that at this point in time, although the chair of the overall North Sea Commission used to represent Southend—the council—no English authorities are currently represented. Our Norwegian friends and allies consider the organisation a very effective way of ensuring that bilateral links are maintained and of having discussions. It is a great shame that England, the largest country in the North sea, is not connected in to that organisation. I urge my English colleagues to go back to their local authorities to ask why not.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank all who have contributed to this incredibly important debate.
Covid has exposed many things, including the dysfunction of the British state. It is overcentralised, slow, wasteful and clunky. Our economy too often delivers great gains for too few in too few places. We need a new model of economic growth to spread wealth, security and opportunity fairly. As we have heard from the contributions today, nowhere is that more true, sadly, than in many of our coastal communities.
Coastal communities, like many former industrial towns, have seen 40 years of managed decline as the great industries of fishing, shipbuilding and port work have all but disappeared for many. Tourism, boosted in some places throughout covid, has not been enough to mitigate the decline of industry. Added to that, the natural geographical challenges for many of these towns—their location on the edges of our country—have often forced them to the periphery of our economy, but, as we have seen in this afternoon’s debate, not from our minds or hearts.
The problem has been turbocharged by 10 years of austerity that has hit our coastal communities hard, ripping apart the social fabric of those towns with the loss of very good jobs. Too many young people are faced with a choice between family and community or opportunity. Too many have had to get out to get on. For the many people who are left growing old hundreds of miles away from children and grandchildren, that is their inheritance, and it has been squandered.
A recent report by the Centre for Progressive Policy found that Conservative-held seaside towns were particularly likely to be pushed into poverty by the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), and his failure to tackle the cost of living crisis. The Office for National Statistics found that the population declined 32% for smaller seaside towns between 2009 and 2018. So, stuck in a low-growth, high-tax cycle, Britain is now unique: a major country that believes it can power a modern economy using only a handful of people in a handful of sectors in one small corner of the country.
Coastal communities do not represent a small section of our society that can easily be forgotten. Approximately 18.5% of the population live in coastal communities—a huge pool of talent and resources that the economy needs. To get the economy growing nationally, we need it working everywhere. We must combat the decline in wages and job opportunities faced by coastal communities, rebalance the lack of opportunity, and entrust local communities with regeneration plans to bring back ageing high streets and infrastructure. That is what levelling up was meant to be about.
The future of levelling up under the new Government is uncertain, and so, too, is the future for many coastal communities. They are absolutely right to have pride in their areas and their rich history. I was born and raised in one. If we visit any of them, we meet people with unlimited energy and ambition for the future of their towns. They are crying out for a Government who will match that ambition, but they have been sorely let down.
Our fishing communities have been sold short by a deal that does not secure our future as an independent coastal state in full control of our waters. Hastings and Rye’s is the largest land-based fishing fleet of under 10-metre fishing fleets in Europe. Has Brexit delivered the utopia for them on quotas? No. Many fishermen in Hastings have said they feel stabbed in the back when it comes to the Brexit deal they have been given. Paul Joy and the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association have said that they are angry about the deal the Government failed to secure for them. Their share of the cod quota has gone up from 9.3% to just 10% over five years.
The tourism sector has also not received enough support throughout the pandemic, and there has been a serious lack of affordable housing. Our coast is one of Britain’s greatest assets, but the people who live there have been let down by a lack of investment and poor infrastructure. A 2019 Lords Select Committee on Regenerating Seaside Towns and Communities report found that, in most seaside towns,
“Inadequate transport connectivity is holding back many coastal communities and hindering the realisation of their economic potential.”
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) speak about her campaign to secure better rail along the south coast. I thought, “I have been taken back all the way to the 2010 election, when her predecessor was campaigning for the same thing.” After 12 years of a Tory MP and a Tory Government, they are no further down the track in getting electrification between Hastings and Ashford. Coupled with limited access to education, particularly to further and higher education institutions, that curtails opportunities for young people, who deserve so much better.
Poor-quality housing was among the most significant problems reported by coastal residents. The stock of second homes and holiday lets continues to increase—up 40% in three years in England—pushing local people out of affordable housing. We desperately need to improve digital connectivity in coastal areas. We have seen how reliant we are on it over the past three years, and we will be even more so in the future. Many coastal towns have tragically become hotspots for rough sleeping and homelessness.
On all those key indicators, the Government have not delivered, even after the delivery of some pots of funding, such as the coastal communities fund. At the same time, those communities have borne the brunt of Tory deregulation and cost-cutting. Water companies in England and Wales pump raw sewage into our nature an average of every two and a half minutes. Areas such as beaches, playing fields and bathing waters have faced 1,076 years-worth of raw sewage over a six-year period. Hundreds of campaigners, such as the energetic Helena Dollimore, have taken to beaches in Hastings to protest the dumping of raw sewage on our beaches. If Ministers really value our coastal communities, they should stop dumping raw sewage on them.
Now from Rye to Redcar, where thousands of dead crustaceans washed up on the beaches, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) powerfully set out. Those communities deserve answers and an investigation. If the Government and the Tees Valley Mayor have nothing to hide, they should welcome the scrutiny.
I want to hope for better, but the new Prime Minister was responsible for unleashing cuts of tens of millions of pounds to the Environment Agency. Environment Agency data shows that, in subsequent years, the Tories presided over a doubling of the rate at which water companies dump raw sewage. It never needed to be this way.
Under the previous Labour Government, one of the first places to see the potential of investment in wind energy was Grimsby. Now a new generation of young people are powering the world from the Grimsby docks through clean energy and life-changing apprenticeships. Communities know best what their natural resources and assets are, so they should have more say in and control over their investment and regeneration plans. We need to bring power, ownership and assets back to people and communities so that they have a stake in their future. That is why we want to replace the right to bid with a far more powerful right to buy, which would mean that communities got first refusal on local assets and the right to buy them without competition. Assets of community value include pubs, historic buildings, football clubs and high street shops—the things that make up the social fabric of our societies. This is about giving communities financial autonomy, which makes them more resilient and insulates them from decisions made at the whim of Whitehall.
The Welsh Government are introducing new planning laws and stronger licensing systems for holiday lets and second homes, which means that communities in Wales will be able to reap the rewards of thriving tourism while preventing areas from becoming ghost towns when holidays end. It will also put an end to people being priced out of their own neighbourhoods just so that homes can stand empty for months on end. As we have heard, that is a problem across the country, but particularly in Cornwall and the south-west. The Government must learn an important lesson from that. By trusting and working with the community, we can find the right balance. We can bring jobs, growth and income while protecting the fabric and spirit of our coastal communities, which matter so much.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lia Nici)
It is an absolute honour to be here and speak in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for raising the important issue of coastal communities and their future. This Government’s central mission is to level up the UK by spreading opportunity more equally across the country, bringing left-behind communities up to the level of more prosperous areas. I am delighted to have the opportunity to set out our ambitious plans to realise the potential of every place and every person across the UK.
We have already made progress towards levelling up coastal communities through initiatives such as rolling out gigabit broadband, introducing a fairer school funding formula, opening freeports, increasing the national living wage, recruiting more police officers, and further local devolution with more powers being passed to local people, away from Westminster.
My Department’s coastal communities fund, which ran from 2012 to 2019, made great strides towards levelling up coastal communities, with investment of £229 million into 369 projects in coastal areas through England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Alex Cunningham
The coastal development fund was important for coastal communities around the country. The Minister’s predecessor said that fishermen in Redcar could access the fund for infrastructure—perhaps a new fishing boat or equipment to improve their fishing. However, there are no fish left in the sea for them to catch. Does the Minister agree that we need further investigation into the ecological disaster we have on our hands on Teesside?
Lia Nici
With respect, I am not sure I agree with that statement. Coming from the coastal community of Great Grimsby, where our fishing industry is taking advantage of the increasing Brexit opportunities for quotas, I accept that we need to ensure that fishing is sustainable to ensure that we have a future industry. However, I am not quite sure I agree with the hon. Gentleman there, but DEFRA is not my portfolio or my specialism.
Jim Shannon
The Minister mentioned the moneys dispersed through England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Could the Minister send me the details on the money that was allocated to Northern Ireland?
Lia Nici
Yes, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with those details. Thanks to the coastal communities fund, more than 7,000 jobs have been created, 2,000 existing jobs have been safeguarded, thousands of training places for local people have been produced and more than 3 million visitors were attracted to coastal areas. It is estimated that those visitors brought hundreds of millions of pounds of expenditure into our coastal communities, and that the funding supported almost 9,000 existing businesses, while helping to launch hundreds more.
Selaine Saxby
I agree entirely that the coastal communities fund was a truly excellent thing. Please can we have it back?
Lia Nici
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I will certainly take it back to the Department, although I am not sure how long I will be in this position. I hope it will be for a little bit longer.
With regard to other funding streams and the success of the coastal communities fund, it is right that we now focus our regeneration efforts around coastal communities through our larger and more expansive programmes as part of a more joined-up approach to levelling up. As we have heard from many Members today, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is not the only Department touched by coastal communities. There are also the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—the list goes on—but I will go back into the Department and make sure that we are talking across all Departments to ensure that we get those benefits that Members are looking for.
We also have a long-term ambition to reduce the alphabet soup of Government funding streams. Now that the coastal communities fund has closed, my Department has taken care to ensure that coastal communities of all sizes remain at the heart of our continuing regeneration programmes. For example, there are 22 coastal towns that are each recipients of towns deals worth up to £25 million, including places such as Whitby and Birkenhead. Overall, coastal areas will benefit from over £673 million-worth of investment via the towns fund alone. The towns fund is specifically targeted at places with high levels of deprivation, which makes it a good fit for some of our coastal towns, as we have heard today. Our towns deals unleash the potential of our local communities by regenerating towns and delivering long-term economic and productivity growth—productivity has been a theme throughout the debate. This is through investments in urban regeneration, digital and physical connectivity, skills, heritage and enterprise infrastructure.
Other coastal communities, such as Maryport and South Shields, are benefiting from future high streets fund grants to revitalise their high streets. We have also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) and for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), who have put in bids for other funds as well. We need to make sure that we continue to revitalise our high streets for our future generations. The future high streets fund is focused on renewing and refreshing high streets, by boosting footfall and reducing vacant shopfronts, for example. In total, coastal communities will benefit from £149.7 million-worth of funding via the future high streets fund. Every one of our programmes, from the community ownership fund to the levelling up fund, features multiple coastal communities on their list of successful bids.
Robin Millar
I am struck by the Minister’s list of extensive investments. My own contribution referenced investment. However, Opposition Members mentioned what is happening in Wales, where the proposal is to introduce another tax—a tourism tax. We heard tax mentioned this morning and a tourism tax mentioned here. It seems to me that there is a contrast here between approaches of investment for growth and taxation. Would the Minister agree?
Lia Nici
I thank my hon. Friend for making that clear. We have been having lengthy discussions over the last few weeks about the disadvantages of adopting new taxes. Implementing tax cuts and developing and helping the economy are vitally important. We need to make sure that, throughout the UK, we try to have a consistent approach that helps members of the public, instead of playing political games.
Steve Double
A number of Opposition Members, including those on the Front Bench, have raised the issue of sewage discharge, as though it is a new phenomenon that has never happened before, when it has in fact been going on for decades. We are the first Government ever to take action on this issue—I know that, because I launched the plan two weeks ago. Does the Minister think I should send a copy of that plan to the Opposition Front Bench, because they seem to have missed it?
Lia Nici
I have heard the point from my hon. Friend, but I need to make quick progress.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye, who called this debate to discuss the future of coastal communities. I hear her calls, and those from other Members, for a coastal communities Minister. That is not part of our Government policy, but hopefully, while I am in this place as the Member for Great Grimsby, everyone will know that I understand exactly the situation that she and other Members are talking about. I will cut short what have left to allow her to wind up.
Sally-Ann Hart
I thank the Minister, the SNP spokesman the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), and the other Members present for their contributions. It is of regret that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), chose to politicise and personalise her response in an otherwise constructive cross-party debate. Having stood against my predecessor in 2015, she is still fighting a battle for Hastings and Rye, rather than focusing on her new role and constituency. My concerns are for 2022 and the future, not the fight of 2015.
Written Statement
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy Price Guarantee
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Her Majesty’s Government are acting to protect British households from the spiralling costs of energy. The energy price guarantee will give people certainty with their bills. The EPG will apply from 1 October and will discount the unit cost for gas and electricity use.
This guarantee, which includes the temporary suspension of green levies, means that from 1 October a typical household will pay no more than £2,500 per year for each of the next two years. This will save the typical household £1,000 a year. It comes in addition to the £400 energy bill support scheme.
The scheme will start on 1 October 2022, when Ofgem’s new price cap is due to come into effect. Cost projections for the delivery of the EPG are uncertain as they depend upon usage levels—which are highly dependent on weather patterns—and, for future three-month periods, the wholesale price of energy.
The new guarantee will apply to households in Great Britain, with the same level of support made available to households in Northern Ireland.
HM Government will also support all business, charities and public sector organisations with their energy costs this winter, offering an equivalent guarantee for six months.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out the expected costs as part of the fiscal statement later this month.
[HCWS294]
House of Lords
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oaths and Affirmations
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Horizon Europe
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made about the United Kingdom’s participation in the Horizon Europe research programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government remain ready to associate to Horizon Europe. We have entered into formal consultations with the EU, aiming to finalise the UK’s association. If the UK is unable to associate soon, we will be ready to introduce a comprehensive alternative programme that delivers many of the benefits of Horizon through international collaboration, end-to-end innovation, and a strong and attractive offer to encourage talented people to build their careers here in the UK.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, but I have asked this several times and there has been no progress whatever. We have not even had a Minister of Science during the crucial period of this summer. Does the Minister not realise that the uncertainty about this issue is running the very real risk of a brain drain? Surely the Minister wants to keep the best and the brightest in this country. Do the Government really want to sacrifice British science on the altar of the Northern Ireland protocol? Moreover, will the Minister accept that the Royal Society, major learned societies, Cancer Research UK and even this House’s own Science and Technology Committee make the point that a plan B is not the answer?
It is not the money but the irreparable damage to the collaboration between scientists around Europe and wider afield that is at risk. If the Government feel that there is a strong case for their position, perhaps the new Leader of the House could arrange a debate in government time to discuss this extremely important issue. We cannot call ourselves a science superpower unless we find a way to join Horizon Europe. What are the new Government going to do about this?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Viscount is attacking the wrong target. We remain ready to associate to Horizon Europe at the earliest possible opportunity, in line with our agreement with the EU on the TCA. It is the EU that is preventing this agreement, which is why we have launched the dispute procedure. The noble Viscount is linking two entirely separate issues: the Northern Ireland protocol is a separate issue in a separate agreement. This is the EU’s fault; it is trying to hold science hostage under the banner of another issue. We remain ready to associate, so, however many times the noble Viscount asks me the question, he will get the same answer.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the creation of ARIA was an admission of the bureaucratic nature of the current UKRI research funding system. The Government must adopt plan B, which would be regrettable, and introduce a new research funding stream for international research co-operation. Will they commit to streamlining UKRI procedures to make them as flexible and generous regarding direct costs and innovation, and as start-up friendly, as current European funding? Surely it cannot be the Government’s intention to increase red tape if we are unable to remain in Horizon Europe.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I very much agree with the noble Lord; it is very much not our intention to increase red tape. We are not ready to give up on Horizon yet, but it is obviously regrettable that the EU does not want to finalise our association and abide by the agreements that it entered into. We have launched the dispute procedure mechanism as a last try to persuade it of the benefits of this co-operation. We have excellent co-operation in other areas, such as energy, where we are helping the EU out in its hour of need. So we hope that it will see sense and abide by the agreement that it entered into, but, as the noble Lord said, we have a plan B if that proves not to be the case.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the press release of 16 August announcing formal consultations with the EU uses much stronger words than the Minister has. It says:
“UK membership of Horizon Europe would be a win-win for both the UK and EU.”
Will this Government continue to support the words of the then Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss? Will they hold their nerve to achieve that goal, whatever temporary blockage there may be?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I stand completely by those words: it would be a win-win, and we want to do it. It would be to the benefit of the EU and the UK scientific community, and it is regrettable that the EU is refusing to finalise the agreement that it entered into.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend tell us why we cannot be associate members of the Horizon project, like Israel and Tunisia? Israel is not a member of the EU, and Tunisia is not even a member of the Eurovision Song Contest.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point, as he often does. I am not sure that the Eurovision Song Contest is a sufficient precursor to Horizon Europe, but, to be serious, his point is very valid: other non-EU countries are associate members. We want to join; that was the agreement that we entered into, and I hope that the EU will see sense and abide by the agreement that it signed.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, surely the Government’s default programme is a second best. The Minister has said that it will deliver “many of the benefits” of the current programme. Where are the gaps, and what will not be delivered?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am not sure that it is second best; it is an alternative. We have many scientific co-operation programmes with many other parts of the world; the EU is not the be-all and end-all of scientific co-operation. However, we think that there is a lot of value in Horizon Europe, which is why we agreed that we should join up. Of course, we are prepared to pay all the associated costs. That was the agreement that we entered into and we want to try to join, but we have a plan B if that proves impossible.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, for a change, I start by congratulating the Government for appointing one of the best candidates as CEO of ARIA—well done. One key issue of the Horizon Europe programme—apart from us becoming a full member, which should be our aim—is the collaborations we develop with other scientists worldwide. If we do not become part of Horizon Europe, there is no strategy in the plan B to increase collaboration internationally for our scientists.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind words about the CEO of ARIA and completely associate myself with them. He makes an important point: we have many collaborations with other scientists across the world. We think that this is very valuable and we want to build on it, but there are many scientific institutions in the EU with which we would also like to co-operate through association to Horizon. Of course, we will look at alternatives and will certainly work with alternatives in other parts of the world.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, subjects such as maths are crucial in ensuring that the UK achieves the Government’s ambition of becoming a science and technology superpower. The Minister has outlined a UK programme but that will not have the power of Horizon in collaborating internationally. How can we ensure that the UK remains attractive as a place for STEM experts to move to and work in, if our reputation and scientific capability suffer due to a lack of association with Horizon?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The main attraction of the UK in terms of collaboration with other parts of the world is our world-leading scientific community—which is why it happens now. We have a number of the best universities and researchers in the world. We are very proud that there are many people of other nationalities who want to come to the UK to continue their research programmes, and we have a considerable investment programme to enable that to happen. We want all that to continue and we will build on that, but we also want to work with our European colleagues, which is why we want to associate to Horizon Europe.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we have a new Prime Minister and her words, when she was Foreign Secretary, have been quoted and my noble friend the Minister has endorsed them. We want to have a new beginning; we wish the new Prime Minister every possible success, for all our sakes. Would it not be a good idea if she were to write to the President of the European Commission reiterating what she said as Foreign Secretary and expressing the hope that we can build new relations with our former partners in the EU?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sure that the Prime Minister will be having many conversations with EU leaders and the European Commission. I am not sure that another letter would make a tremendous difference to the EU’s position on this; in my view, it is being incredibly unreasonable. We will continue to work with the EU. We have co-operation in a number of areas, so it is a win-win situation in which both sides benefit, and we want it to continue.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, innovation thrives on collaboration, as we have heard. Delaying resolving the relationship shows that the UK is not stepping up to face the challenges of the future. We must accept our responsibility in this relationship. We have heard that organisations such as the UK Dementia Research Institute are on course to become world leaders in the field, but they need the collaboration of the brightest and the best of Europe. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that the uncertainty around the UK’s association with Horizon Europe is having on the UK’s research field?
Lord Callanan (Con)
There are some negative impacts: the current uncertainty is damaging for scientific co-operation. There are many researchers who want to get on with the job, and we have put in place transitional arrangements to help them in the meantime. We want all that co-operation to continue. The noble Baroness cites some good examples, and this is exactly why we want to associate to Horizon Europe. We call on the EU to do that and to finalise the agreements that it freely entered into and signed. I am sure that the House is united in wanting that to continue.
Royal Navy: F35B
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the Royal Navy will be able to deploy a carrier with the full complement of 36 United Kingdom-owned F35B in its air wing.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord’s figure of 36 F35B as the optimum deployment for a carrier is not a measurement recognised within the MoD. Each Queen Elizabeth-class carrier has been designed for the flexible usage necessary in a modern defence capability, including transporting a mix of fixed-wing and rotary aircraft, but the composition and size of an embarked air group in a deploying carrier will be tailored to meet the operational requirement.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. I was very heavily involved in getting the aircraft carriers, and one of the bases for their size and scale was that they needed to carry 36 fast jets and be able to do operations over a three-day period. That is why they ended up at that size. You need to do that if you are going to be a hot-war situation, when they will do serious damage to the Queen’s enemies and can look after themselves. There is a war going on in Europe, and there could be a world war. We do not have enough aircraft to fill the carriers should we need to. In the defence review that is to be carried out, which was referred to by the Secretary of State for Defence two days ago, can the Minister ensure that it will look very closely at making sure we have enough aircraft and, even more fundamentally, enough pilots? The UK Military Flying Training System is a disaster at the moment and we have too few fast-jet pilots.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his role at the time of conceiving the two carriers, but that concept is now fairly mature and life has moved on. As I have indicated, the MoD has taken a view that we need flexibility. We need the capacity to be sure that, depending on operational requirement, we have these F35s, both land based and, if necessary, ship based, which is a sensible proposition to advance. I remind the noble Lord that the UK’s carrier strike group is a unique-value capability. The UK is the only ally to contribute a formed maritime task group complete with carrier-strike capability to NATO via the NATO readiness initiative.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, given that this hot war has been going on for six months in Ukraine, can my noble friend reassure the House that we have sufficient land forces, as well as naval and air forces, to sustain an operation such as this for six months? Most people say that we do not.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I hesitate to contradict my noble friend; I know he poses his question in very good faith. I would say to him that the role that the British military has been playing in relation to Ukraine is essentially one of support and advice, and of course, most recently and importantly, of training within this country—a very welcome facility for the armed forces of Ukraine. We also maintain our necessary capability to protect the security and defence of this country.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, for once the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, focused on helicopters and the air; I will focus on the sea. In the light of the fact that HMS “Prince of Wales” had to come back to dock because of technical issues and that earlier in the year all the Type 45s were in dock because of various issues, does the Minister feel that our naval capability is adequate, and what focus will Her Majesty’s Government, with the new Prime Minister, be putting on making sure that we are sufficiently resilient in the naval sphere?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
On the HMS “Prince of Wales”, that has of course been a regrettable development. I can confirm that the “Prince of Wales” is alongside in Portsmouth and will proceed to Rosyth dry dock in due course. In the meantime, HMS “Queen Elizabeth” has departed to carry out duties with the United States. On the broader question of the fleet, the noble Baroness will be aware that the fleet has been a very important supporter of the carrier project. Many of our ships were in attendance discharging duties. Most recently, there have been ships in the Mediterranean escorting Russian ships. I therefore reassure your Lordships that the fleet is in a good state. What is exciting is the planned development of the fleet, not just with Type 26 and Type 31 but now with Type 32 and Type 83 coming into scope.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s previous answer focused on the size of one carrier air group on one carrier. Even when Lightning numbers have been increased, the UK will still have only one air group for two carriers—an average of half an air group per carrier. The United States has an average of over one-and-a-half air groups per carrier, because it recognises that only this will enable it to maintain operational tempo. The Government have shown great ambition for deployments of the carrier and carrier air groups; will they recognise that if they are to sustain this ambition into the future, they need to provide the necessary resources to back it up?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
There are various situations where the United States and the United Kingdom approach differently configurations of capability. The noble and gallant Lord will be aware of the planned increase of the F35B flight support in 2025, when it will go from 26 at the moment up to 48. The ultimate plan is to increase it to 74. That is exciting and should reassure noble Lords that there is very robust capability.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, what is the cause of HMS “Prince of Wales” being taken out of operation, who is responsible and when will it be fully operational?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am unable to give any specific answers. The “Prince of Wales” will need to make her way to Rosyth to go into dry dock. At this stage, it is not known what the cause is; we know that the problem is mechanical failure on the propeller, on the shaft and the coupling, but what is causing the problem will become clearer only once inspection can be carried out. I see the noble Lord is shaking his head; I have huge admiration for him, but I did not realise that naval architecture was part of his skillset.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, with other members of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I visited the Lockheed Martin factory in Dallas where the F35 is built. In the course of that visit, I was subject to a large number of questions as to precisely how many further aircraft the United Kingdom proposed to buy. Once upon a time, the figure was 138—I doubt that is still current. Will the Minister take the opportunity, as of today’s date, to give a definitive answer on the number of this fifth-generation aircraft that the United Kingdom Government are prepared to buy?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As I indicated to the noble and gallant Lord, the current level of F35s is 26; by 2025, there will be a further 22, bringing the flight up to 48. The intention is to buy a further tranche of additional F35B aircraft, which has been announced and will bring the UK total fleet up to 74 aircraft.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, as the present economic crisis was triggered, and indeed largely caused, by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, additional military expenditure, especially in as far as it helps expedite the expulsion of Russian troops from the territory of Ukraine, is part of dealing with the economic crisis?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As my noble friend will be aware, the integrated review absolutely and sharply identified the principal threat as far as the UK is concerned as being Russia. That has now manifested itself in an ugly and defined shape. He will be aware that the spending review accorded to the Ministry of Defence a record-busting extra £24 billion over the course of this Parliament. That is indicative of the Government’s commitment to defence. Obviously, with the new Prime Minister and, I have to say, a very determined Secretary of State for Defence, I am sure that the future significance—as my noble friend has indicated—of our defence capability will be constantly highlighted.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister can see from the number of questions that people are really concerned to hear from the Government a firm commitment that we will have a sufficient number of aircraft for our aircraft carriers. That is why she has been pressed, and some of the reassurance she has given to the House today is good. On the use of the aircraft carriers, can she say a bit more about the trials that are going on, about UAVs being used off the carriers and where that has got to? What are the Government’s objectives and plans with respect to that? Will it impact on the numbers of F35Bs that are to be ordered? Also, more worryingly, what will it mean for the way the aircraft carriers are configured and will any changes be needed to accommodate that?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble Lord will be aware, the F35 is a state-of-the-art aircraft and we are very pleased to have them. We are very pleased to be adding to our fleet and we look forward to these additions. They are already armed with very sophisticated weaponry, but the Royal Air Force intends to continue upgrading them with the wider programme and to equip them with UK weapons, which will include the UK-developed SPEAR Cap 3 and Meteor. To augment their strike capability and to complement and, perhaps, potentially replace some of the roles delivered by its crewed helicopters, the Royal Navy is exploring options for a range of uncrewed air systems.
NHS: End-of-life Care
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the provision of end-of-life care by the NHS, particularly in respect of Archie Battersbee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
The Government are committed to providing high-quality end-of-life care, working closely with the NHS and other stakeholders. The Government are commissioning an independent review into the causes of disputes between those with parental responsibility and those responsible for the care or medical treatment of critically ill children such as Archie Battersbee. The requirement was specified in Section 177 of the Health and Care Act 2022 to lay a report before Parliament by 1 October 2023.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for his Answer and for our meeting earlier this week. I stress that what I am looking for is a review, not an inquiry. We are not trying to pin blame and I hope that the review will have a wide range of disciplines and not be dominated by doctors and lawyers. Because although they say they acted in the best interests of the child—I am prepared to agree that—the parental grief will last for the next 50 years, for the rest of their lives, and we need to get this right. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me that this will be a wide-ranging review that will involve all the disciplines involved in care.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I return the favour by thanking my noble friend for the meeting, but also for the frequent conversations we have had about mediation, for example. I know my noble friend is a qualified and experienced mediator. We are quite clear that the review has to attach no blame. We want to hear from as many people as possible. It will investigate the causes of disagreements in the cases of critically ill children between providers of care and persons with parental responsibility. It will look at whether and how these disagreements can be avoided, how we can sensitively handle their resolution, provide strong evidence and inform future recommendations to support end-of-life healthcare environments in the NHS. As much as possible, it will promote collaborative relationships between families, carers and healthcare. We can see it from both sides: as a parent, just put yourself in the shoes of someone who has to make these difficult decisions. Sometimes they feel that the medical profession acts like God; on the other side, there are medical professionals who believe that the parents do not really understand all the details. Let us make sure that we get this right.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for having met me earlier in the week to discuss this issue. When parents receive devastating news, they are in such a state of shock that communication with them, however sensitively undertaken, risks being misunderstood. Parents are unaware of the limitations on their ability to request interventions or transfer for their child, unlike when the child is at home. So will the Minister confirm that the review will take direct, in-person evidence from parents who have been in this terrible situation and who wish to contribute from their experience—not to apportion blame, but to improve care for others?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for the conversations we have had since the passage of the Health and Care Bill. My officials have been incredibly appreciative of her bringing her expertise to this field and, in fact, for educating them—and me—on some of the sensitive issues that people have to deal with in these environments. We want the review to be as wide as possible; we do not want to cut it off; probably the only thing we want to avoid is blame. We want to do this in a sensitive way; we want to hear from the families; we want to make sure it is a balanced review, and we hope to take evidence for the review from as many people as have a view on this. That is why we are taking our time; we have to publish it by 1 October 2023.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, as a family judge I tried a very considerable number of end-of-life cases, in relation to both children and vulnerable adults, so I hope this review will take into account that when the parents and the medical profession are locked in disagreement, there is a way out, where the judge who tries the case actually looks exclusively at the best interests of the child—taking into account, of course, what the parents think and what the doctors and the nurses think. It is crucial to have that ability to go to a family judge, who will deal with these cases sympathetically but firmly.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble and learned Baroness makes an incredibly important point about getting this right and getting the right balance. We know how difficult and sensitive these cases are when they have come to court. One issue that has been discussed by a number of parties is mediation: can we avoid it going to court in the first place, but also at what stage should mediation take place? It should not just be offered right at the end when everything has ended. We must make sure we really hear the voices of professionals as well as those affected, and families, to get the right balance. So far, we have relied heavily on the courts for some of these cases, sadly, but we just want to make sure we get this right.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, over the last six years, the provision of palliative care for children and young people has become very patchy. CCGs across England have been closing down palliative care for children. Are the Government taking action to hold integrated care boards to account publicly on implementing their duty to commission palliative care for children and young people?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware that earlier in the week, when we had the debate on integrated care boards and their responsibilities, we added—thanks to the work, once again, of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—palliative care services to the list of services that integrated care boards must commission. Integrated care boards will be accountable to NHS England, but also the CQC will be doing a lot of evaluation and they will be measured against the list of services that they have to commission. Clearly, there will have to be accountability on palliative care services.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, when a child is at the end of their life, quality palliative care should ensure, of course, both the child’s comfort and managing pain and symptoms, but also provide support and care for the entire family. These are clearly heartbreaking situations for everybody involved, so will the Minister assure your Lordships’ House that the review will take account of the support that is given to the whole staff team, including ancillary workers? They, of course, have a key role to play.
Lord Kamall (Con)
One thing that often happens at reviews is that we realise how complicated these issues are. One often cannot pinpoint one key issue, or one silver bullet, as it were. Therefore, quite often—and I was on a call on a different issue yesterday—we thought we had to tackle certain issues but realised there were wider systemic issues. Clearly, that is going to be the case here. NHS England’s palliative and end-of-life care programme is an all-age programme, but there are specific pieces of work focused on children and young people. We have also been working very sympathetically with charities such as Together for Short Lives. It has been commissioned to produce written guidance to provide ICBs and ICSs more detail, as the noble Baroness asked for, but also to make sure we make it a better environment and learn.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in my conversation with the family of Charlie Gard, they were emphatic that adding to the tragedy of the loss of a child, the thing they found hardest was having to go to court and go through an adversarial system. Anything the review can do to prevent the necessity of court action, notwithstanding wonderful judges such as my noble and learned friend, would be welcomed by such families.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I think many noble Lords will echo the sentiments of the noble Lord on that. That is why we want the review to be as wide-ranging as possible. People have suggested mediation, but should that be mandated or voluntary? There is also a difference between commercial mediation and family mediation. Commercial mediation is usually binding, whereas family mediation is not always binding. A further question is: at what stage do we offer mediation? One thing we are being told is not to offer it when everything else has failed: we should offer it as soon as possible, to encourage a collaborative approach.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, clearly it is important that the professionals are involved in this review, but I think it is also important—as this review begins and my noble friend considers the terms of reference—that emphasis really is given to families, because these tragic cases are symptomatic of a wider problem that a lot of people face when they engage with officialdom and professionals, which is feeling that they are not being taken seriously. It is even more acute when the situation is the one that these families find themselves in, when they are parents and have important status as parents, and the issue at hand is the life and death of their own child. My noble friend has been very good at reassuring this House, but I ask if he could just give greater emphasis again to the importance of the families in this review.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Once again, I thank my noble friend for joining the meeting this week on this issue. It is quite clear that we want to hear from all voices. We encouraged the families to come forward. We have heard a number of cases, including some raised by noble Lords personally, who have been in contact with the families, and raised their concerns. Quite often they felt that their voices were not heard and they did not really understand the issues; they were in a very emotionally difficult time to take some of those issues in and understand the choices that were available. Sometimes they felt rushed into it by medical professionals. I think sometimes medical professionals have to show a bit of humility and not act like God.
Care Homes: Energy Costs
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the likely impact of increased energy costs on care homes; and what extra support they intend to provide in response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
The Government are committed to working with local authorities to help manage the pressures of inflation, for various reasons, on adult social care. We acknowledge the impact that challenges such as energy price rises will have on residential care providers and right across the system. As noble Lords will be aware, the Prime Minister has stated that a package of support for energy costs is her priority. Sadly, in terms of timing, we expect announcements shortly and will see how that feeds into the social care sector.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for his reply. As he well knows, care homes are already under great financial pressure. In the six years up to 2020, more than 1,600 had to close—many of them rated good or very good—and the rise in energy costs is already absolutely staggering, from something like £660 per bed per year to over £5,000 per bed per year. Of course, some help will be offered this afternoon, but is the Minister confident that the Government have really taken on board the sheer scale and seriousness of this situation for care homes?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble and right reverend Lord makes a really important point about this issue and the impact on social care. What we are seeing right across government is the impact of this energy crisis: that is why the Prime Minister is making this announcement. We will then have to look into the details of how that affects the different sectors. We have heard from the social care sector, we have heard from care homes and we have heard from patients themselves about their concerns about the cost. I am afraid I cannot give more details at the moment. The Government are working very closely at the moment with local authorities and are in constant conversation about how we can help reduce the burden. Once we have more details of the package, we can look at that in more detail.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, heating costs are just the tip of the iceberg for care homes. What does the Minister have to say to people such as June, a care home worker in Sheffield of 24 years, who is now having to leave the sector that she loves, just to get enough money to be able to feed her family?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government recognise that for a long time the social care sector has been treated like Cinderella: a poor relation of the health system. That is why we had the Health and Care Bill, to make sure that we have care right through people’s lives. One thing about social care is how disparate and fragmented it is. One reason we have the register is to understand who is out there—who is doing what, their qualifications and their levels of pay, but also how we can make sure that they feel it is a rewarding vocation and career.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many care homes and, indeed, even more retirement homes and retirement communities are serviced by what are called heat networks. These are combined systems; we used to call them combined heat and power, but heat networks are the modern description. These were not covered at all by the previous energy cap. Could the Minister be assured, and assure his friends, that in the coming arrangements they are properly covered as well?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As my noble friend will be aware, many care homes are privately owned and run. Quite often, we do not get into that level of detail but I will take the question back to my department once we are aware of the package that is announced.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, to add to the problems of care homes to which noble Lords have referred is the report in today’s newspapers that the new Secretary of State for Health intends to use them as places to discharge people who cannot have a social care package in their own homes. Can the Minister assure the House that, if this happens, all attention will be paid to the huge problem that care homes already have in recruiting enough staff to carry out their existing functions?
Lord Kamall (Con)
All noble Lords will be aware of the challenges facing care homes and their owners, including recruiting sufficient staff. People have referred to a number of different issues; one is vocation and feeling valued—quite often they feel as if they are poor relations. Another issue is supply, which is one reason we have looked at a visa to try to encourage more workers from overseas. If we make it a proper vocation, people will want to train in it, get those qualifications and feel they have a valued career.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I was going to ask a very similar question; the Minister did not answer the specific question about the Secretary of State’s proposal that she may move people from hospitals into care homes and ensuring that that is joined up. Will he comment on that proposal?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am afraid I was so busy swotting for these Questions and the three-hour debate afterwards that I missed the news, so I will have to take that back to the department and make sure that we give an answer. I will not avoid giving one.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, have the Government considered the impact of increased energy costs on our major scientific facilities, such as the Diamond Light Source? If increased energy costs eat up the increases in UKRI budgets, this will severely impact our ability to deliver the Government’s ambition of the UK becoming a science and technology superpower.
Lord Kamall (Con)
That is a really important angle that I had not considered, to be honest. We recognise that, across government, many Ministers in many departments will be waiting at the moment with bated breath for the Prime Minister’s announcement to work out the impact on those stakeholders who have been contacting Ministers and others about the impact of energy costs. Clearly, something has to be done. The Prime Minister will announce it and then we will have to work through its impact. If I am still in post, I can come back to say how that will impact the health and care sector.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend look into the situation of care homes, whether they are in the private sector or not, that have not currently participated in the government handouts to help with energy costs? Second home owners have had discounts on their bills, but there has been no per-bed contribution from the Government to help care homes which are already struggling and for which many families are paying enormous sums.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend makes a point that I was not aware of, so I am afraid I will have to take it back to the department. However, it appears a very reasonable point.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, what support will the Government specifically give those care homes whose pre-Covid Care Quality Commission ratings have been downgraded from good to inadequate as a result of staff shortages? This is on top of their deep concerns over energy costs. Recent press reports say that up to three-quarters of care homes in England have been reassessed in this way.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Clearly, one of the issues in the overall review of the social care sector is that, when the CQC and others report on care homes and other places, action is taken. One of the things we will do is talk to the right stakeholders and individuals, but we also have to work in partnership with local authorities—as quite often it is their responsibility—to try to make sure we raise the standard.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My noble friend Lord Scriven asked a specific question on what the Government are doing about pay. The Minister will be aware that there is a crisis in the care sector in recruiting and retaining staff. I declare an interest as I have a family member in a residential care home and am acutely aware of the situation. What is being done to make sure that they are properly funded so that we can retain and recruit much-needed care staff in all residential homes?
Lord Kamall (Con)
When I speak to officials in the care part of my department about this issue, one of the things they say, in consultation with a number of individuals in the care sector—not only employees but owners—is that morale is clearly low, partly because of pay but also because they feel they do not have a proper vocation. It is very confusing to have all these qualifications; they are not recognised elsewhere and there is no clear career path. One reason we are putting together this register is that we want to understand the landscape out there—it is incredible that this has not yet been done—including the number of qualifications, the issues and what sort of career structure can be offered.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, several noble Lords have referred to the terrible financial situation of the whole social care sector and its employees. I recall the last Prime Minister said he was going fix social care. Nothing happened. Does the current Government recognise that a step to help out the social care sector, over and above other businesses, would be at least a first step towards fixing the sector?
Lord Kamall (Con)
One reason we brought forward the Health and Care Bill was that we wanted to make sure that social care was given proper status. Social care has been seen as the poor relation to healthcare for far too long by successive Governments. What we want is a proper health and social care system, properly integrated. Sometimes social care workers leave the social care workforce and move to the health side because they feel it is more valued as a profession. We want to make sure the same is true of social care providers.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, the NHS has a great history of running great campaigns. I am thinking of “Clunk, click” and the campaigns against smoking and alcohol. Can the Minister say, because not only the cost but the supply of energy is very important, how the department is co-ordinating to ensure that there is a campaign to reduce the energy used in homes, particularly those in the higher income brackets?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the question. The issue is much wider than just health. We are working with local authorities to understand the impact on the care sector, but there is also a huge cross-government approach on education and energy efficiency. We have to wait and see the package before we can look at this in detail with the sector, and at what measures can be offered.
Arrangement of Business
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is my understanding that in the other place the Prime Minister is leading a debate on the energy crisis and her proposals. As it is a debate and not a Statement, can the Government give some thought and hold discussions in the usual channels to arrange for a debate in government time in this House to discuss this most pressing issue?
As Opposition Chief Whip, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her appointment as Government Chief Whip. She is both a popular and a highly effective Member of your Lordships’ House. I look forward to working with her again.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, for his service as Government Chief Whip. I always enjoyed working with him; he was kind, courteous and straight in all our dealings. I always enjoyed our conversations that took place many times during the day and even sometimes into the night.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, if I might—unusually—respond on a usual channels question, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his kind words about my noble friend Lord Ashton, which are widely shared, and about my noble friend Lady Williams. I think this poor old man will often need a helping hand to stop him stumbling and I cannot think of a securer colleague than the noble Baroness.
As for the fundamentally important question that the noble Lord poses, which perhaps goes a little wider than the energy question, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister indicated yesterday a set of what she considers the urgent requirements for the country. They may well eventuate in provisions being laid before Parliament, which it would be my duty to make sure your Lordships’ House has the opportunity to discuss. I fully take his point about the nature of the debate in the other place meaning that I am not standing here repeating a Statement on energy. This is a question of fundamental importance, and I can give an undertaking that we will take it away and have those discussions in the usual channels to see how we can accommodate your Lordships’ House.
Leasehold Reform (Tribunal Judgments and Legal Costs) Bill [HL]
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jagtar Singh Johal
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I first acknowledge all the hard work the Minister has taken on this case. In the Commons yesterday, Sarah Champion reminded the Minister there, Rehman Chishti, of the Foreign Office policy to call for the release of arbitrarily detained British nationals, yet the Government have not done this in Jagtar’s case. This is despite the former Prime Minister accepting that Jagtar is arbitrarily detained. The Commons Minister said in response that it was for the new Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister to make such a determination. Will they do so, and when? They should commit now to seek Jagtar’s urgent release and return to the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, and he is correct: I have been working on this since I first took on the portfolio as Minister for South Asia in 2019. One of my first actions was to meet directly with Gurpreet Johal and the wife of Mr Johal because it was important for me to extend that support directly. The noble Lord is also right about the issue of Mr Johal being arbitrarily detained; the UN working group has alluded to this. We have taken it seriously and I am sure that the noble Lord will know from my own dealings with him that I have taken this on board. My understanding of the timeline on the UN side is that there is until 4 November for India to formally respond to what has been suggested. We look at all the details very carefully and I assure him that we are doing everything that we can at the current time in securing the current detention conditions of Mr Johal and access to consular visits, which are regular. I meet the family regularly and ensured that the former Foreign Secretary, now Prime Minister, met them; and I have met the constituency Member of Parliament on a number of occasions. I will continue to update the noble Lord, both within Chamber and outside, with further details on this case.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I commend the Minister on his work in this area. It has been consistent and clear. I am personally pleased that he continues in his post in the Foreign Office—I did not mean that he should not have been promoted; of course that goes without saying but, at the very least, I am pleased he is still in his position. The question is not now just the welfare of Jagtar; it is about whether Ministers are seeking his urgent release. Can the Minister be clear: is that what representations are now being made about to our Indian friends? There is an incongruity in that the UK is currently negotiating with India the human rights chapters of an FTA at the same time at which there is, as the UN has put it, an “egregious human rights challenge”. Are we making it clear to our Indian friends that we will not enter into an FTA until this issue is resolved?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have made representations here with the former Indian high commissioner—there is a change not just in government; the new high commissioner is about to start and I have sought an early meeting. This is a case that the Indian Government are fully aware that the United Kingdom has consistently raised, along with three other cases. They continue to feature part and parcel in the raising of cases and the issues and concerns we have about Mr Johal’s continued detention in India. On the noble Lord’s latter point, I assure him—again, subject to changes which may take place within the FCDO—of my commitment and that we will not pursue trade to the exclusion of human rights. It is a particular area of focus for me, as the Minister for Human Rights, and we regard this as an important part of the deep, candid and constructive relationship we have with India, which allows us to raise these issues. The discussions on various issues have featured those of consular cases.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Could the Minister clarify two simple points? First, is it still the Government’s view that Jagtar Singh was arbitrarily detained? The answer is either yes or no. Secondly, have the Government at any time demanded, and are they still demanding, his release?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on my noble friend’s first point, as my honourable friend said in the other place, the former Prime Minister made a statement on the issue of arbitrary detention. We have looked very carefully and continue to look at the issuance of the arbitrary detention opinion of the UN working group, and in this respect we are taking up all the issues that have been raised, including those in my direct engagement and discussions with the family, including Mr Johal’s brother. I have been clear with them in a private capacity about my own views on this. The Government are very clear where we look that there is credible evidence of arbitrary detention. We work both publicly and privately to support and tailor our assistance to the given individual who may be detained in this way. Our primary focus in the case of Mr Johal very much remains, first and foremost, full consular access. I believe there have been 48 occasions over his detention period, every six to eight weeks, on which we have been granted that access and where we look at the primary issues of his welfare and health, and that continues. We continue to work directly with the Indian Government in making representations. I am very cognisant of the situation. This detention has continued for over 1,000 days, and it is important that we seek a resolution to this.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, Jagtar Singh Johal was a UK blogger who drew attention to India’s continuing abuse of the human rights of minorities. The Indian Home Minister has publicly described Muslims as termites—that is the extent of the abuse of human rights. For his actions, Jagtar Singh Johal has been incarcerated and tortured for years in an Indian jail and is facing the death penalty. We have heard that we have constructive talks with the Indian Government. That has been going on for years— what has actually been achieved? We talk about the importance of freedom of speech, but does the Minister agree that it smacks of hypocrisy when we choose to look the other way while negotiating a trade deal with India?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s final point, I assure him that we do not look the other way. Our relationship with India is strong; it is a relationship between friends and constructive partners. It is very much because we invest in that relationship that we can raise sensitive issues including this particular case and others on both sides, allowing for an exchange. We are making progress, certainly in my view. Of course, I am totally with the family; the continued detention has caused them much anxiety and continues to do so. Again, let me be absolutely clear that the UK Government oppose the death penalty in every respect, and the Indian authorities are fully aware of the UK’s position on this.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has obviously made a great deal of effort on this matter and is to be complimented on doing so. Are the Government satisfied by the quality of legal representation that Mr Johal is subject to at the moment in what is clearly a very tense, and for him unnerving, experience?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, ultimately, of course, it is for the family to determine their lawyers and legal representation, but we engage regularly both with the family here and with our consular officers in India. The Indian high commission deals directly with both Mr Johal and his legal representatives, but this issue is very much for the family. I do not know if there is a specific issue which has been raised with the noble Lord, but if he wishes to raise one with me outside the Chamber I would certainly be pleased to look at it.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My noble friend Lord Tyrie asked for short and direct answers to his questions, but he got rather long ones. Could we return to the essential point, the second one that my noble friend made: are the Government demanding this man’s release?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am not avoiding the direct answer, but all noble Lords will appreciate the sensitivity of this issue, and indeed this particular case, for a variety of reasons. I have deliberately stated what the government position is, but I assure my noble friend of the absolute commitment that we are very much focused on the welfare of Mr Johal. On the issue of arbitrary detention, I have already outlined the current timeline, and I am sure we will see India’s response to the UN report. I will certainly continue to update your Lordships’ House on this case. As someone who deals with India quite extensively on various issues of consular cases, in my experience I have seen that we see results not where we raise these issues in a very public way but where we seek to unlock them privately and candidly.
Primary and Community Care: Improving Patient Outcomes
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel
To move that this House takes note of (1) the role of primary and community care in improving patient outcomes, and (2) the need for reform.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to open the debate today. I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have their names down to speak and look forward very much to their contributions. This debate takes place at a time when the whole NHS is under immense pressure, with media headlines such as “NHS in crisis”, “End of general practice as we know it” and “Will we have an NHS in the future?”, to quote a few. The focus of today’s debate is primary and community care—the backbone of our health service—how its performance affects patient outcomes, and whether there is a need to reform the primary care service.
Primary care has been the bedrock of the NHS since its inception in 1948. It has been revered by patients and has delivered huge health improvements. When Nigel Lawson—now the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby—said that the NHS was a national religion, it was because of patients’ love of its primary care services. The two professional groups worshipped by the people were the general practitioners and nurses in primary and community care, not the brilliant obstetricians, colorectal surgeons, palliative care doctors and—I say on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, who had to withdraw because of cataract surgery yesterday—not even the psychiatrists. Primary care is now in a different place. It is still the bedrock of the service, but the foundations are shaky, even crumbling. Unless fixed, the whole system will collapse.
What is primary and community care? It is the first point of contact for healthcare and is provided mainly by GPs, but also increasingly by nurses, dentists, optometrists, pharmacists and many other allied health and care providers, including physiotherapists, mental health nurses, care co-ordinators and, in the community, health visitors, specialist nurses, midwives and end-of-life carers. The system is about caring for people rather than treating specific diseases. A system designed to work as an integrated team, with the patient as its centre and focus, has now been broken through incoherent policies, being starved of resources, and a lack of attention to the need in primary care to develop a technologically driven healthcare system and the infrastructure and professionals needed for an efficient and effective system to run.
Primary care is the setting for 90% of patient contacts, involving some 26 million patients a month. Huge increases in demand are putting pressure on the whole system and leading to long waits in general practice, emergency care and planned care. These pressures have created the biggest single fall in public satisfaction with the NHS in decades. A recent survey suggests 68% of patients do not feel they will receive timely treatment if they fall ill, 50% think it is harder to get a GP appointment and 40% think the service has deteriorated. With general practice under immense pressure, recent data from the GP Patient Survey and the British Social Attitudes survey suggest two-thirds of people are dissatisfied with service provision, with the quality of care received perceived to be an issue.
If the problems in general practice and its performance are not resolved, it will lead to the demise of general practice as we know it and, in turn, the collapse of the whole system of primary care and the wider healthcare system. We will see a repeat in general practice of what has happened in dentistry, where 90% of NHS dentists are not accepting any new adult patients.
Putting aside the rhetoric, GP numbers are declining, despite higher numbers in training. Recruitment and retention are poor. More GPs are retiring early, with pressures of work, bureaucracy and pension rules cited as reasons. Reports of nearly 57% of GPs working three days a week or less and increasing numbers doing only private work—approximately 1,500 at the most recent count—are a worry. The service may become more privately driven.
Contracts and the independent status of general practitioners dominate all discussions related to primary care. The small-business model of GP contracts is still favoured by professional organisations, but a House of Lords report suggested that model is not fit for purpose. A recent Policy Exchange report, At Your Service, advocates a universal shift to a fully salaried model over time as part of wider reforms in primary care. More and more younger general practitioners are choosing to be salaried.
Of course, no change in service delivery can occur without general practitioners being part of it and, importantly, playing a leading role. General practice can and should provide that leadership, but at the same time recognise that strong leaders remain strong and gain respect by at times letting go of some strongly held values, such as their gatekeeper role or even their responsibility for minor contractual issues. I am sure GP professional organisations are aware of this: my conversations with them suggest that they are not averse to change, but wish to be involved in any policy developments. The workforce issues are not confined to general practitioners. Similar problems exist with nursing, health visitors and community care professionals, all of whom are a crucial part of an effective system of primary care.
Of course, there have been efforts to try to improve the system and deliver patient care. The establishment of primary care networks, starting in 2019, is one key example. While the majority of general practices belong to them, not all do. Success at delivering service at scale in primary care—that is the important point—by PCNs has been variable, and now the BMA is threatening to withdraw its support, with lack of resources and contractual issues given as the reasons for doing so. Some other measures undertaken to improve service are the recently established diagnostic hubs and the recent involvement of pharmacists in blood pressure monitoring.
I was impressed that the voluminous briefings we have all received all cry out for a need for change in primary care that delivers three things: workforce, infrastructure and technology, including IT. Various recent reports have come up with suggestions for improving the primary care system: the report Fit for the Future: A Vision for General Practice, produced by the Royal College of General Practitioners; the At Your Service report I mentioned from Policy Exchange; and the Fuller Stocktake report by Dr Claire Fuller, an eminent general practitioner, which was commissioned by NHS England. All of these reports have suggestions for an integrated system that delivers primary care at scale. In commenting on some of the reports, the King’s Fund has suggested that tinkering with “more of the same” will not produce results. Reforms need to be driven from the bottom up, by the people who do the work.
Undoubtably, we need a primary care service that delivers at scale, is fully integrated with other parts of the health and care system and, above all, is responsive to patient needs and delivers better patient outcomes and health improvement. So what is the way forward? My personal view, which I hope noble Lords would support, is that first and foremost we need political recognition that an effective primary care system is a prerequisite to a sustainable NHS. To this end, proposals for change to make future primary care fit for purpose have to be led by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. The words from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State hitherto are encouraging and I hope they will be followed by some actions.
On the other hand, this House has an opportunity to play an important role by setting up a special Select Committee to report on the future of primary and community care, identifying possible barriers and solutions that could make important contributions to making primary and community care fit for purpose and fit for the future. I hope this gets support from noble Lords.
As for questions for the Minister, I have only one: is there a recognition by the Government that primary care is now in intensive care? None of the piecemeal reforms, mostly of process, will work. Strong, bold leadership is needed to bring about the system change it needs. Otherwise, it will die, and with it the NHS. I beg to move.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for bringing about this important debate. As ever, he has a canny nose for the timing of these things and he is absolutely spot on. I know from my time in office that the pressures on primary and community care are intense and I agree that we need an urgent rethink. That is why I will put my name to any forthcoming proposal from the noble Lord to the Liaison Committee for a Select Committee on primary and community care.
The NHS has experienced long waits in hospital care before, which are extremely distressing, but it has never faced such a grave challenge in general practice—and as we know, general practice is the bedrock of the NHS. This is the right moment for noble Lords to distil complex recommendations for primary and community care into succinct, wise counsel for the Government to consider. I will share a few thoughts on how that might work. First, primary and community care is the first point of contact with the care system for the public. When we consider the remit of this Select Committee, we must remember that for many people this is not a GP. It is likely a website, an app, a school nurse, a community hospital or a pharmacist.
Secondly, there is definitely a workforce crisis—briefings from the Royal College of GPs, the Royal College of Nurses, the King’s Fund and others make that very clear, and I am grateful for their persuasive statistics—but the crisis in primary and community care is not just a workforce crisis that can be answered through solving recruitment, retention, workload and the GP contract, although those are extremely important challenges. Anyone who listened to the Minister’s answer yesterday to the OPQ about GP training will be clear that there is no massive new wave of GPs set to save the day. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, only one in four GPs are currently working full-time, and training numbers are going sideways, so we should assume that there will be fewer GPs rather than relying on imaginary regiments of doctors riding to the rescue. Rather than deluding ourselves, we should make our plans accordingly.
Thirdly, we should not over-romanticise relational-based care when the role of the GP is evolving as quickly as that of the bank manager or the priest, and when many patients never ever visit the practice. We got through much of the pandemic with most practices shut, after all. People have extraordinarily diverse needs, from the long-term sick who certainly need regular clinical, face-to-face care to those at the other end of the scale, the occasionally sick or injured who might need a more transactional relationship. We must avoid lazy generalities, and we need a modern service that is flexible enough to meet different needs. That is why I would like any Select Committee studying primary and social care to look at four issues in particular.
The first is the importance of prevention. Too much traditional thinking around primary and community care assumes that patients turn up with symptoms and are guided by the GP on to some care pathway. These days, though, by the time patients have symptoms, it is often too late for the best treatment. This system-wide focus on late-stage acute medicine is costing the country a fortune in hard expenses and opportunity costs: expensive procedures, long recovery times, falling longevity, falling workforce productivity, and hefty social care and welfare bills. It is a huge price to pay. Primary and social care should play a much more proactive role in achieving “domain one” of the NHS outcomes frame- work, which is preventing people dying prematurely.
Secondly, technologies to “transform” healthcare are at our fingertips. I saw the power of digital transformation in primary care from my experience during the pandemic, with virtual wards, testing, the vaccine rollout, surveillance through the REACT survey, the prompt delivery of antivirals, and so on. We should study how primary and community care put digital first and become the foundational layer for scaling digital healthcare through the NHS. This approach is outlined in the persuasive policy paper from Policy Exchange that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned, At Your Service, by Dr Sean Phillips, Robert Ede, and Dr David Landau. They rightly argue that there is much to do to enhance the existing infrastructure and clarify the legal regulation of data. That is why I am interested in their recommendation for a digital health and care Bill, and in a “smart” first contact navigation programme—an “NHS Gateway”—that can deliver a more personalised “front door” to the NHS. We also need to address the use and sharing of data in primary care for management, clinical and research uses, with suitable resources allocated for this absolutely invaluable work.
Thirdly, I support the recommendation by Dr Rebecca Rosen at the Nuffield Trust for embedding more non-medical clinicians—such as pharmacists and dieticians—into primary care, an approach that worked well for us in the pandemic. There are lots of great examples already in primary care of working differently, from community health worker models in Westminster to the Healthier Fleetwood approach. The question that arises from these experiments is: how do we make innovation in primary care the norm rather than the exception?
Lastly, I will say a word about diagnostics. The pandemic demonstrated the value of consumer diagnostics, attached to digital reporting and used at home or on the high street. These tools engage people with their own healthcare, improve personal responsibility and relieve the pressure on overburdened healthcare systems. It makes no financial or clinical sense that people book a hospital or GP appointment for often extremely simple procedures such as swabs, serology, and faecal and blood pressure tests. During the pandemic, the Lighthouse Lab processed 150 million PCR non-NHS test samples, lateral flow tests were shipped at up to 4 million a day at their peak, and over 2 million blood samples were taken at home by finger prick and posted to labs to maintain the ONS infection study. I give a loud cheer to our new diagnostic hubs, but I fear that on diagnostics we are going back to the old-fashioned, cottage-industry-based pathology mindset rather than embracing the opportunity presented by the consumer diagnostic revolution.
Let us not fight the last war or try to recreate Dr Finlay. This Select Committee must examine the opportunities presented by this crisis for moving away from cumbersome paternalistic models towards a data and diagnostic-empowered citizen patient. That is what a Beveridge 2.0 could look like. That is the way to grow the economy and protect our people.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his speech. I fully echo his desire to see a special Select Committee created; I hope that the Liaison Committee members present will take note of that.
The noble Lord said that primary care is the bedrock of our health service, and I agree. If it does not function effectively, the whole healthcare system suffers, and it is clearly suffering greatly at the moment. It is not just workforce shortages or the crumbling estate. A recent Civitas report made for sober reading. It ranked the performance of the UK healthcare system with that of 18 comparable countries and, lamentably, it placed the UK second to bottom across a series of major healthcare outcomes, including life expectancy and survival rates from cancer, strokes and heart attacks. Recently, the Health Foundation has drawn attention to the UK having an astonishingly low number of MRI machines and CT scanners: fewer per person, according to the OECD, than any other developed country. That is besides having fewer doctors and nurses than our north European neighbours and very poor uptake of new medicines.
We see England’s hospitals being caught in a vice. On the one hand, the race to work through the enormous backlog of care means an unceasing stream of new patients into fewer beds. On the other hand, a decade of flatlining, at best, funds for social care means that even when treatment is concluded, thousands of patients remain in hospital beds waiting for follow-up care. Emergency departments have no beds to send new arrivals to the wards, patients with urgent needs wait for hours on end, ambulances cannot hand over patients, and are stuck in a queue outside A&E. We have to see the inadequacies of primary care in this much wider context.
The pandemic has accelerated the move to online booking and phone consultations with general practitioners. That has made care quicker and easier for many people, and we should not ignore that. On the other hand, it has led to many other patients facing enormous difficulties in getting face-to-face access to their general practitioner. The NHS England stat last October which showed that over 15% of practices recorded less than 20% of their GP appointments being held face-to-face is very worrying indeed. Last month, Pulse magazine reported that 1.5 million patients had lost their GP in the last eight years after the closure of almost 500 practices. Recruitment issues were part of the problem but we should not ignore the issue of workload, inadequate premises and sheer morale issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned Dr Claire Fuller’s very interesting report to the NHS England CEO. She concluded that patient satisfaction with access to general practice is at an all-time low and described the 8 am Monday scramble for appointments as synonymous with huge patient frustrations. She said:
“left as it is, primary care … will become unsustainable in a relatively short period of time.”
We have all had evidence from the Royal College of GPs, which says that despite a government agreement to an increase of 6,000 in GPs, the number of fully qualified full-time equivalents has actually fallen by 1,622 between September 2015 and 2021. I mention again that I do not understand how the Government could have reduced the number of medical training places to 7,500 this year, following two years of there being about 10,500. It is amazing and extraordinary that the Government could have allowed that to happen. I had better declare my interest as a GMC member in that regard. The Health Foundation predicts that the shortage of GPs is set to become worse. It thinks that the current 4,200 shortfall will rise to more than 10,000 by the end of this decade.
Noble Lords have mentioned the recommendations of the Royal College of GPs: a new recruitment campaign, freeing up bureaucracy and investing in new technology—and I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on that. But that is really not sufficient to tackle the fundamental issues we face. Noble Lords may be aware of a recent report by your Lordships’ Public Services Committee which looked at public service workforce issues generally. The stark conclusion is that every part of the public sector has targets for recruitment and none of them will be met. There is a lack of realism in accepting that and starting to do the work that needs to be done when faced with these acute problems. Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on that.
We need a realistic conversation about what we can expect primary care to do in future. Most of the evidence we have received says basically that we need more GPs but assumes that we carry on with the same 1948 model of primary care. That is not sustainable at all. We must be realistic and start talking about why that can no longer be the way we go forward.
Dr Fuller’s report to the NHS CEO was interesting. She argued for the streaming of services, with access to care for people who get ill but use health services only infrequently, and a distinction between their needs and those of people who are chronically ill and need care, to know their GP and access to multidisciplinary support. That is the start of thinking more fundamentally about primary care in future.
We must ask ourselves about the role of gatekeeper. People are wedded to the idea of the GP as gatekeeper—or, let us be truthful, as rationer of services. But when we look at outcome figures for, say, cancer, we must ask whether the lack of direct access to specialist care is one of the reasons that our outcomes are so poor. I do not know whether that is true or not, but we certainly need to ask the question.
How can we increase GPs’ job satisfaction? We must do something to give them the confidence to carry on in primary care in a way in which they get job satisfaction. We have many overseas doctors coming to work in the hospital sector. Can we change some of the rules and understandings in primary care to enable them to work there as well?
Finally, is the organisational model fit for purpose? We know that many GPs no longer aspire to partnership. What ought to take the place of that? If we are moving to a salaried service, partly in the employ of private-sector providers, how can we ensure that those GPs are getting the support, professional leadership and confidence to wish to stay in the sector in future?
I look forward to the Minister’s response. We do not need a lot of statistics, which, frankly, is not the answer to the fundamental issues we face. If ever we needed a special Select Committee, this is it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Patel for this necessary debate, and I declare an interest. In November 1981, I was given an honorary fellowship award by the Royal College of General Practitioners, and I have been and am a user of the NHS, being a high-lesion paraplegic. I ask the Minister: how is the NHS going to be improved without an adequate workforce?
We have a growing elderly population, with many complex conditions, who need treating. I am absolutely perplexed that many well-qualified students with many A and A* exam results, and who would like to study medicine, are being turned away by universities because the universities do not have an adequate number of places or because they are too expensive to train. This seems ludicrous when there is such a shortage of GPs and specialist consultants. This is a frustrating situation. What can the Government do to rectify it? Should we not try to be self-sufficient for the future years by training our enthusiastic young people, not training just half of what we need? We must invest in our future.
I bring to the notice of your Lordships and the Minister the situation of sick notes. It seems to be a difficulty for small businesses when an employee goes off sick and keeps getting repeat sick notes. Because of confidentiality, an employer cannot get advice from the GP. Are these repeat sick notes being given over the telephone, and for how long can they keep coming? Since the coronavirus epidemic, many GPs prefer telephone calls to face-to-face visits to surgeries. Small businesses need advice, as they have to put in staff to cover the absent staff who are off sick. At this difficult time, it may be the last straw which breaks the camel’s back.
Bed-blocking is well known and seems to be getting worse. This is not the fault of patients but it is very serious. Ambulances are being held up by multiple patients needing beds and waiting to get entrance to hospital. One of the main problems is that many elderly people have serious falls and cannot leave hospital until there is a care package in place at home so that it is safe for their return, otherwise they will be back in hospital. There is a desperate need for carers and a community team of physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech therapists for patients who need to be safe at home. This does not come cheap. More funds are needed in both home care and hospital. It is no good robbing Peter to pay Paul; we need both.
My noble friend Lord Patel is asking for a House of Lords Committee on this important matter. It cannot wait: something should be in place before winter sets in. Whatever is set up needs to start the moment Parliament returns in October.
I end by saying that dentistry in the NHS is in crisis. Something must be done to save many people from agony and frustration. Dentistry has not caught up after the Covid epidemic. I have every sympathy with anyone who has toothache from an abscess, having had one myself last week. The conclusion is that reform of the dysfunctional NHS dental contract is now a matter of urgency. A reformed service will not work if there is no workforce left by the time it is finally introduced.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow those four opening speeches. However, I knew that I was getting myself into quite unnecessary trouble by putting my name down for this debate. Having had no internal experience of the National Health Service, I cannot follow the catalogue of problems which we have so far heard.
I start by declaring an interest: I am in receipt of community care. I will not go into detail, but I was in hospital two or three times and the NHS picked up that this would probably lead to the need for aftercare. Lo and behold, community care appeared. It has been very interesting and extremely helpful, but it raises two matters.
First, there was no explanation for why this was happening; it just happened. There has been no explanation which might lead one to understand the objectives or the value of the work, and possibly even the value for money of the work, being done in what is undoubtedly an endeavour to ensure independence—an endeavour for which I am very grateful.
The second matter that has arisen is that I cannot any longer understand whether there is a borderline—and if there is, where it is—between primary care and what might loosely be called hospital-based care. Because of my short stays, two hospitals have picked me up and are determined to monitor all sorts of aspects of what they found during their investigations. A lot of that work is what I would describe as primary care. I will not go into details, as that is not the point of such a presentation, but, for example, skin trouble, which has been persistent and different and has apparently quite complicated causes, seems to have moved away from primary care.
The other aspect of these experiences means that, for various reasons, I have not been able to create any personal relationship with a general practitioner. I have been responsible for some of the changes that have led to that, but so has the medical centre, where the people change quite rapidly.
When thinking about these experiences and about what I do not understand about the National Health Service and how it is organised and run, I am very thankful for what has happened in the delivery of my medical services; I have every reason to be grateful. There have been glitches along the way—a rare side effect, which affects only 1% of the population, but that just proves that I am an awkward person, as so many people are. I am truly grateful for the way in which the NHS has dealt with the various problems that I have had—and here I am, past my sell-by date.
When thinking about that, I reflect on my two grandfathers. They were both medical men, and they were both involved in the negotiations which led up to the Aneurin Bevan health service Acts. If they were with us today, they simply would not understand what is going on. The changes have been so radical—in society, in the behaviour and reaction of people in society, in the medical profession, and in the technology that has come over the past 74 years—that they would not understand what is going on and why it is going on in the way that it is. This leads me to think that we must be coming to a need to discuss, rethink and maybe alter the Aneurin Bevan settlement.
There have been so many efforts over that time, and yet we have heard the catalogue of the first four speeches of this debate. It is clear that something is amiss and that we need to think about this very big organisation, with its huge difficulties. The gearing in such a large organisation and the importance of that fact that, when medical services are delivered, it is very personal—they are essentially between two people; you and some medical practitioner who has been through a long training and has the knowledge—means that it will either work as it should or will run into troubles.
In thinking about where we are, I hope that the first thing that we will consider very carefully is the relationship between the political sector—this is a nationally provided service, funded from taxation and free at the point of delivery—and the medical profession. There is no natural fit between politics and medicine. There was not at the beginning of the health service, and indeed there were compromises made at that time which we still live with. In starting a discussion, we must go back to fundamentals, and we certainly need the medical profession to stand up and be counted on how it sees the way in which the delivery of medical services should be shifted. What is the borderline between primary care and secondary or hospital-based care? What are the fundamental questions which must be asked and answered if we are to go forward?
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for leading this debate and, beyond that, for the leadership that he provides to this House on all matters health related. Although he used the words community care to refer to community care health services, I know that he will forgive me if I slip over into the other bits of community care, which are so vital when we consider healthcare and which work in collaboration with primary care.
Patients and carers must be the focus of this debate, because improving outcomes for them is what primary and community care services are all about. But I must put in a word of warning here on behalf of those patients and carers: if you ask a typical patient or carer to define primary or community care, they would struggle, as the noble Viscount so ably and vitally reminded us. I must say it is a pleasure to see him with us, not at all past his sell-by date. A typical patient simply does not know the difference and why should they? They refer to “my doctor”, “the hospital” or “the carers who come in to see my mother”. They do not know about different streams, different types of training or regulation; they are puzzled only by why test results take so long to reach their GP, why some care is free and other care has to be paid for.
I have lost track of how many friends and neighbours I have advised should be in receipt of NHS continuing care funding for their elderly parent, when they have immediately been advised to seek a place in a private and very expensive nursing home, without any reference to possible alternatives. What puzzles patients and carers most of all is the lack of communication and integration between services. “Why on earth do they not talk to each other?” they say. “Why do I have to tell my story all over again to every new person I see? Why did my GP not know that I was being discharged from hospital?” Every time I speak to a patient or carer, I find myself at a loss to explain why these things happen.
It is not as though they are new problems or that we do not know how to solve them. We know about integration, shared budgets, joint training initiatives, more realistic funding and better workforce support. We had great hopes when the integration White Paper was published earlier this year: it promised shared planning and delivery for health and social care and making access easier. But there was little to explain how a joined-up system would be managed, be accountable to the public and balance what is delivered locally with national standards and entitlements. That is another cause of bewilderment among patients: “Why does my sister in Devon or Doncaster get something that I have been told I can’t have where I live?”
I must turn to the disaster area of social care, because you cannot focus on any problems in the NHS without fixing social care. I was amazed, as many of your Lordships would have been, to hear the outgoing Prime Minister claim, on Tuesday, that he had fixed it. You could have fooled me or anyone else who works in the system. Why are ambulances in short supply and taking longer to reach those in need? It is obvious: they are queuing at hospitals because there are no beds to move people into from A&E. One in seven hospital beds is now occupied by a patient who is fit to be discharged but cannot be, because there is nowhere for them to go, because of chronic underfunding in the system. With such long-term shortages in the workforce, even those who have a care home place may be neglected, while unpaid carers carry even more burdens, as I have reminded your Lordships on all too many occasions.
I was grateful that the Minister was able to secure a concession for carers in the recent Health and Care Act, enabling them to be consulted at the point of discharge. However, all too often, local services to support them are sparse or non-existent. The charitable sector, which is often the main source of support, is also under severe pressure.
One reason is Brexit—so many former employees were from the European Union—while another is poor wages and another is lack of respect for the social care professions, which are always seen as the poor relation when compared with health services. The Minister referred to that in his Answer to a Question earlier.
The new Prime Minister said that she will stop the health and social care levy, which was meant to fund, first, backlogs in the NHS and, secondly, social care. Will she now give all that money to social care? If so, how much will it be and how many constraints will be placed on how it is used?
The lack of attention to and funding of preventive services is a constant problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, reminded us. Small amounts of money spent early in a patient journey can head off many problems, but too often we wait for a crisis, which requires far more resources and has poorer outcomes anyway. GPs can be vital in identifying such early-intervention opportunities, but are often denied the opportunity to do so. We must remember too that the cost of living crisis will only make problems of access worse and there will be more demand because of cold homes and inadequate diets.
Many have mentioned problems with primary care and the supply of GPs. The reason there are so many patients who walk into A&E is often the difficulty they experience getting a GP appointment. I know this is a major problem in many areas, but I must put in a word for some GP practices, such as my own, which provide services way beyond those we expect and attempt to support their communities with services and initiatives for the homeless, the lonely and those with mental health problems.
I turn to the reforms needed. We need more progress on integration, taking note of some of the local initiatives, which are fine examples, and not being constrained by the “not invented here” syndrome, which is a problem for many people who work in the health service. We must also face up to the workforce crisis. The Public Services Committee, on which I serve, has been mentioned, and it showed that no recruitment targets are being met. It was a great pity that the Government did not accept the amendments for regular reviews of the workforce put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, when the Health and Care Act was going through. To address shortages, Governments, regulators and employers must succeed in retaining existing professionals and recruiting and training additional ones. This may mean that they have to challenge conventions about education and training and be far more flexible in how we deploy that workforce. How many times have I heard calls in this House for integrated training across health and social care, but has any real progress been made?
Being more flexible about patient need requires some professions to give up their protected status and to recognise that a nurse, physiotherapist, pharmacist or healthcare assistant can meet patient needs as well as or—dare I say it?—even better than a doctor. It is a pity that radical reforms of the regulation of the health professions have never been tackled, in spite of many promises.
The new Prime Minister said that the NHS will be a strong focus for her Administration. She will always find those who work in health and care committed, dedicated and willing to embrace change. What they ask for in return is honesty about the problems they face and recognition of their devoted service.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Patel for the very thoughtful way in which he introduced this important debate. In so doing, I remind noble Lords of my own interests. In particular, I am chairman of the King’s Fund and King’s Health Partners.
In opening this debate, my noble friend described—and many other noble Lords added to his description—the substantial challenges that the NHS faces in general and in particular in primary and community care. So far in the debate, there has been a consensus and recognition that failure to address those challenges will ultimately lead to the NHS, in general, becoming totally unsustainable. We see the manifestations of this every day in the crisis to ensure that patients in an acute situation can be delivered to hospital through the ambulance service; in the substantial waits and, quite frankly, clinically unsafe environment that now represents many accident and emergency departments; in the tremendous pressures demonstrated in the acute management of patients in medical, surgical and other disciplines in our hospitals; and, most importantly, in the failure to discharge patients from hospital back into the community. The result of all that is an NHS that is considered, regrettably, now to be failing in many aspects. That failure is attended by an increasing loss of confidence among our fellow citizens.
I strongly support my noble friend Lord Patel’s proposal to establish an ad hoc Select Committee of your Lordships’ House to examine in more detail the challenges and opportunities for reform in primary and community care. In proceeding along that line and in having identified the many challenges faced, the issue is to understand how we might address them. To do that, first, we must deal with a major problem, which is the discordant perception and expectation among some important groups, with regard to what should be delivered by primary and community care services in the NHS. The expectations are those of politicians, of the public, and of health and care professionals. Those expectations are starting to differ widely when we look at the reality of what can be provided through a model of primary and community care established at the birth of the NHS.
That model, having at its heart family doctors well versed with the needs of their patients in broadly small communities in small practice settings, was fine some 70 years ago, but the demographic changes in our country, and the nature of chronic diseases that now attend so many citizens, which have a profound impact on their quality of life and their need to avail themselves of health services, are quite different from 70 years ago.
In addition to that, advances in medical and clinical practice provide important opportunities to impact on many of these conditions, but those advances require changes in the way we deliver care, pathways of care and an important emerging recognition that the hospital cannot be the place where the majority of patients with chronic conditions are managed. They must be managed in the community. Indeed, many must be managed in their home. That requires a different approach to understanding how professionals in primary care and community care settings need to be trained and the skill sets required. It also requires a confidence in understanding that what clinicians might have done previously should be done by other professionals.
Therefore, a professional workforce must be developed, with a recognition that skill sets will have to be developed differentially and that those who might previously not have been involved in delivering direct care—more specialist nurses, community nurses and practitioners—will now need to be encouraged and developed to do so. It also requires the adoption of innovation and technology to ensure that this care can be delivered safely in the community. Patients and their relatives need to be confident that they can understand and have confidence in the digital and technological solutions provided in their own homes and in community hubs and community settings.
Regrettably, none of this seems to be being addressed cohesively, so we rightly welcomed the opportunity provided in the most recent Health and Care Bill for the development of more broadly integrated community care settings and integrated care partnerships and boards to supervise the delivery of that care and bring different elements of the healthcare system together. But we need to go far beyond that. The Minister will be aware that in the debates on that Bill, which he so ably took through your Lordships’ House, there were suggestions, which we have heard from other noble Lords, regarding ensuring that workforce planning, a better understanding of the methodology used in planning, and the parameters considered in terms of demographic change, emerging technologies, advances in our understanding of pathophysiology and the capacity to deliver care should be included in very sophisticated workforce planning that will help us understand not only the number of healthcare professionals required but their potential disposition by way of discipline and specialty, and the capacity, with emerging understanding, knowledge and technology, to train different groups of healthcare professionals so that, as we have heard, they can work more cohesively together as a team, delivering so much more of the care in the community and at home so that patients never need to come to the hospital.
Indeed, other European countries have been able to achieve these ambitions. They have much lower levels of bed occupancy in their acute hospitals. Therefore, they see no particular anxiety about times such as winter, when acute admissions will inevitably increase. We have failed to achieve that. This failure is now taking us to a place where the system will, as I said, become entirely unsustainable.
In closing, I urge Her Majesty’s Government to have the courage to start addressing the problems we face and to start establishing a narrative and communication to bring together professionals, politicians, the public and patients to help understand and develop a consensus around the very important, serious and far-reaching decisions that now need to be taken to ensure that we strengthen primary and community care with new models; to ensure that those models are properly co-ordinated with the changes that need to occur in secondary and tertiary care; and, attending all that, to ensure that we have appropriate workforce planning across those different environments and care settings, attended by a proper review of the regulatory framework in which those professionals will deliver care and a better understanding of how we will ensure proper adoption of innovation through funding innovation streams beyond the recurrent funding for day-to-day delivery of care.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the informative and thoughtful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing what is a very timely debate, given the new Health Secretary’s pledge to put patients first, and the opportunity to talk about how community-based care can improve patient outcomes.
I declare my interest as director and controlling shareholder of the Family Hubs Network Ltd, which advocates for family hubs and advises local authorities on how to establish them. Family hubs are well-placed to deliver a broad range of paediatric physical and mental health services that are more accessible for families. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, mentioned accessibility. That accessibility, and the integration of health with other family support in a non-stigmatising and parent-educating environment, has the potential to transform outcomes. Paediatric health needs that are psychosocial and practical require a whole-family approach. Moreover, delivering them in hospital settings a couple of bus rides away from where people live makes it far less likely that children will attend.
Watson and Forshaw’s study found that a third of all paediatric hospital appointments were missed over a six-month period. Even more concerningly, a third of those children who were “not brought in” by their parents were known to social services and therefore likely to come from families already struggling greatly with the basics of child-rearing. Distance from home contributes to the social gradient in health and perpetuates the inverse care law that those with the greatest healthcare needs have the poorest access to that care.
Accessibility matters greatly if services are to be delivered for the convenience of hard-pressed parents and their children, rather than the system. I welcome family hubs’ inclusion in the statutory guidance for the preparation of integrated care strategies. These are described as
“a way of joining up locally and bringing existing family services together to improve access, connections between families, professionals, services, and providers, and putting relationships at the heart of family support. The Family hub model brings together services for families with children of all ages (0-19) or up to 25 with special educational needs and disabilities … with a ‘Start for Life offer’ at its core.”
Otherwise, access was not prioritised in this guidance, but it should be.
A provider of healthcare services in one county, contracted to provide similar services in two integrated care systems and in two very different ways, told me:
“In one ICS, our contract to deliver children’s community health provision gives us the autonomy to deliver in the community and close to people’s homes. Where we can, we deliver this in Family Hubs so we can provide education for the parents, early help and appropriate expertise. We provide allergy, continence, perinatal mental health, speech and language and other support, all of which prevents unnecessary attendances in GP practices and A&E. However, in another ICS where we are sub-contracted by an acute hospital, we are required to deliver the same services from a hospital setting. The parent and patient experience differs significantly from one that is educated, empowered and supported to one that is the recipient of a treatment.”
Moving on to how health is described in the DfE’s Family Hubs and Start for Life Programme Guide, the lens always seems to be the very early years. Reference is made, for instance, to
“a clinical setting such as a maternity hub”,
mental health is couched in terms of helping families receive appropriate support for their parent-infant relationship and the specific conditions mentioned, such as neonatal necrotising enterocolitis, infer babies’ health needs. This is an important start, and the Department of Health and Social Care is, at this point, mainly interested in family hubs as the place where start for life services can be delivered, but their potential is so much greater than that, as my earlier example made clear.
Can my noble friend the Minister let me know what encouragement DHSC is giving to the wider provision of health in family hubs? I ask because, at present, the Family Hubs Network and others have found a distinct lack of awareness of their potential to ease the load on health providers. Health professionals tell us that paediatricians at local hospitals still do not know about family hubs, but need to. They often see families with well-established problems, such as obesity and incontinence, which are best treated closer to home with regular contact with early-help practitioners in family hubs. Social prescribers and therefore local GPs, even in areas where there are flagship family hubs, are similarly unaware.
Hubs are also a better place to take on the non-health problems which consume so much of GPs time. In 2015, Citizens Advice’s report, A Very General Practice, itemised how much time GPs spend on various non-health issues and found, unsurprisingly, that 80% of GPs said that such demands cut into their time for meeting patients’ health needs. Citizens Advice called for non-health demands to be met in ways that free up GPs to focus on patients’ health, particularly where they require specialist knowledge. The top three non-health issues that patients raise during consultations could and should be part of the family hub offering: 92% of patients mentioned personal relationship problems, 77% problems with housing and 76% problems with work or unemployment. Only one-third of GPs felt they were advising patients adequately.
Family hubs already join up services, including housing and employment coaching, from a wide range of government departments. DWP runs reducing parental conflict programmes in family hubs, where it is easier and less stigmatising to access relationship support, particularly for low-income families. Similarly, the MoJ’s pilot family hub in Bournemouth links with the family court and enables separating parents to get help earlier, and avoid costly and adversarial court processes.
Last week, the Children’s Commissioner’s Family Review said that every government department should bring forward family-strengthening policies, led strongly from the top. Family hubs should be the key delivery sites for them and expand their remit, for example, to include better support when parents make child maintenance claims, measures to tackle rural loneliness and disadvantage and intergenerational opportunities. A Cabinet-level Minister needs to co-ordinate these across government, backed by the new Prime Minister. Liz Truss pioneered this in government when she commissioned my review into the importance of prisoners’ family ties to prevent re-offending and intergenerational crime. She has also promised to look at family taxation, so I am expecting great things from her.
The Children’s Commissioner also said how important family stability is for children and parents. Profound mental and physical health ramifications flow from family breakdown. In a major study of more than 43,000 children, clinicians said that family relationships problems are the most common reason children and young people access mental health services. Resolving them often requires a whole-family integrated approach that it would be better for the health service to deliver in family hubs rather than secondary or primary care settings, which necessarily individualise conditions. Reform to make this a mainstream, default approach, where appropriate, is urgently needed for better patient outcomes, but it requires leadership from government to divert the NHS away from its well-worn tracks. Will the Minister kindly arrange a meeting for us to discuss this further with his new boss?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, like others I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on raising this crucial debate. I declare that I am a fellow of the Royal College of General Practitioners as a GP—indeed, a medically qualified Dr Finlay—and got my fellowship before moving to hospice work. I am also a patron of the Louise Tebboth Foundation to prevent GP suicides and am president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. I will focus on family medicine specialists—GPs—but we must not forget the major impact that physios and others have on conditions through direct access.
I chaired the Independent Commission on Medical Generalism for the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Health Foundation. Our 2011 report concluded that the generalist approach is essential across healthcare and that if it did not already exist it would have to be invented, while work by Barbara Starfield showed that the health of a nation depended on the quality of its primary care services. I do not believe that that has been dented by Covid.
Patients are the raison d’être of healthcare delivery. People become ill at all times of the day and night, presenting with undifferentiated conditions. Some conditions progress rapidly, in others the course is fluctuating or resolves. In our communities, many people live, work and contribute to society with a broad range of chronic long-term multiple co-morbidities. Some have rare conditions. Differentiating abnormal from the normal requires diagnostic skills and risk-assessment experience. Good primary care training is essential, providing adequate experience in paediatrics, women’s health, acute and early presentations of serious illnesses and the complexities of medicine in the elderly—and now the workload of GPs has become increasingly linked to social problems in society and mental health.
However, the problem we have is that GPs are leaving practice faster than they can be recruited. The 27,500 whole-time equivalents GPs are made up of a workforce with a headcount of around 40,000. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Health, pointed out, there are now 2.5% fewer GPs than in 2019 and 5% fewer than in 2015, but the average GP is responsible for 16% more patients than 10 years ago. More patients need to be seen than there are 10-minute appointments in a day, let alone time for home visits.
Seeing 40 to 60 patients a day, many of whom have complex medical and social problems, for five days a week is unsustainable. GPs become burnt out and leave. They seek work in other areas in medicine, but often in much more administrative or peripheral roles. Many GPs develop an extended role, developing expertise in some branch of medicine, such as women’s health, diabetes or hospice work, or in emergency medicine departments as part of a portfolio of clinical work. They need to carry on working but feel burnt out with the workload of routine general practice.
The GP is the first point of contact for undifferentiated complex problems. They can provide a holistic and comprehensive service for the long-term and acute care of the population they serve in their communities. An integrated approach must address the whole person: the physical, psychological, spiritual and emotional aspects which have led to the condition that has presented. Importantly, there is good evidence that, where continuity of care is in place, there are better clinical outcomes at lower cost, with greater patient satisfaction. We desperately need more GPs—incoming newly qualified GPs—but also to find ways to retain our experienced, highly skilled doctors who are leaving the profession in large numbers.
These doctors are trained family medicine specialists, and they need parity of esteem with consultant specialists in secondary or tertiary care. From that position, some will need to be able to pursue particular special interests, which will support other services such as mental health—thereby combining the family medicine specialist’s interest with some days in community practice—where integration with social care provision is essential.
There have been efforts to increase the numbers of allied health professionals in primary care to help with the shortage of GPs. But there is increasing evidence that, unless these professionals are carefully integrated into the primary care team, they cannot replace the experience and value of a GP. They need support and nurturing. The incoming chair of the council of the Royal College of General Practitioners, Professor Kamila Hawthorne, wants to create associate membership of the college for those allied health professionals who contribute to the primary care team to ensure better integration and understanding between the different disciplines in proper team working. In GP clusters that work well, all disciplines coming together has been shown to improve clinical outcomes and decrease the burden on secondary care. Change will be embraced if those delivering care can lead it and funding issues cannot be ignored in terms of the way that people are paid and reimbursed for their services.
There are other disciplines and services in the community. Hospice home care teams and Marie Curie nurses can be an essential supplement to primary care provision, but they need to be involved early. As many GPs have an interest in palliative care, I hope that the specialty will reopen to those with MRCGP, rather than allowing entry to consultant level training only to those with RCP membership, because their mature clinical experience in the community is invaluable, especially for hospice at home.
We must recognise that the diagnostic, management and risk-assessment skills of the trained GP are essential for our communities and the NHS. Community work is not easy, but it can be very fulfilling if allowed to work properly. The employment of family medicine specialists, with parity of esteem with the hospital consultant body, would allow those who wish for a much more flexible career approach to develop their special interest roles while retaining a firm foothold in family medicine in the community, with all its complexities. Working with their communities, with their own patient population and with all aspects of social care, they can be community leaders.
In the pandemic, around 30,000 doctors were granted temporary emergency registration and over 9,500 have remained licensed to practice until now. At the end of the month, they must apply to restore their registration and for their licence to practise to remain. To date, around 8,000 have not acted despite a streamlined process being in place. Will the Government request NHS trust responsible officers to be available to doctors in their area who wish to relicense?
I have not focused on pensions, but it has aggravated the problem of the loss of GPs from practising. As judges have been given an exemption from the pension cap, will the Government review the pension cap for clinicians? It would be far more cost effective than gaps being filled by expensive locums or leaving services with gaps unfilled and a population without the healthcare it needs.
More medical school places, greater flexibility around revalidation and an ability to have flexible career paths could help supply and retention. However, the problems leading to attrition must be addressed, and the scenario from dentistry is the flashing warning light in front of our eyes.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I thank her for a very interesting, well-informed speech. She identified the pressures placed upon GPs, which are not going to be relieved easily. Would she welcome what happens in a country such as France, where many—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am very sorry, but the noble Lord is not on the speakers’ list.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
No, not in a time-limited debate with a provided speaking time.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for calling such a timely debate. It is rather curious to hold a debate without any general practitioners being present to contribute. I understand that in your Lordships’ House there are no general practitioners. I declare my interest as advising the board of the Dispensing Doctors’ Association, which represents over 4,000 general practitioners in over 1,000 dispensing practices, accounting for 15% of all practitioners.
What lies at the heart of this debate and what I would like to focus on is how health services are delivered in rural areas. There are twin challenges which lie at the heart of this debate; there is a rural and urban aspect to health policies, which is often overlooked. We often have a metropolitan elite running the Civil Service at the highest possible level. There is also the challenge of the conflict between primary and secondary healthcare. It is a flawed approach to seek reform to primary care without looking at the bigger picture. I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said about needing a cohesive and holistic approach to any possible reform.
I put on record that there were 365 million GP consultations in 2021, which equate to about 6.5 consultations per patient. Excluding Covid vaccinations, that equates to over 311.5 million consultations—the same number delivered in 2019. There were 179 million face-to-face appointments in 2020-21, according to NHS Digital. It is also important to state that GP pay peaked in 2005-6 and has fallen every year to 2013-14. It is still not back to the pay between 2004-8, without taking inflation into account. The source for that, again, is NHS Digital.
My concern is the lack of joined-up government in delivering healthcare across the piece. Neither the Department of Health and Social Care nor NHS England rural-proof policy. That flouts the detailed proposals set out by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, in 2015, when our current Prime Minister was the Defra Secretary. Whenever rural-proofing is raised with officials, we are told it is a Defra issue. I hope that it is something my noble friend the Health Minister will take a personal interest in. Perhaps this could be addressed by a House of Lords committee, such as the one sought by the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
The expression “delivering at scale” fills me with alarm and anxiety. Policy which delivers at scale must recognise the challenges of delivering health policy in all its settings, particularly rural ones. For example, do officials understand the lead times to run a vaccination campaign and how this affects a GP workload? GP practices need to order vaccines in November and by January by the latest to run an autumn schedule. There has been much vacillation and incoherent messaging to contractors about the flu and Covid booster campaigns this year. I think that has added to uncertainty in GP practices and to their lack of preparation time.
The preference for large vaccination centres run directly by the NHS does not work in rural areas. Indeed, the National Audit Office reported:
“In terms of delivery costs, dedicated vaccination centres have been the most expensive method at £34 per dose compared with £24 for GPs and community pharmacies. GPs and community pharmacies were the most popular delivery model for all priority groups”.
There has clearly been wastage of valuable medicines in the big centres, which I see as an example of delivering at scale. I argue that it simply does not work in rural settings, where it is extremely difficult for patients living in a rural area to access such a big out- of-town urban centre.
Dispensing in rural areas is often the best choice for those with chronic conditions, and often rural practices dispense because there is no viable pharmacy. This dates back to Lloyd George and national insurance when it was first set up. Dispensing practices receive a disproportionate number of outstanding inspections from CQC, for some bizarre reason. They are often the last public service left in many communities and are highly valued by their patients.
I applaud the work done by successive Ministers for Health, not least my noble friend Lord Bethell, succeeded by my noble friend Lord Kamall, but the digitalisation of the health service in a health rural setting has not been a huge success. There are huge problems of rural connectivity. Poor broadband and mobile signals hamper delivery of the service and make remote consultations almost impossible. There is no electronic prescription service available for dispensing patients. Recruitment of GPs is difficult but, where they train in rural practices, they tend to stay and become partners.
I argue that the system of drug reimbursement needs to be overhauled to remove perverse incentives so that what is good for patients is also good for the NHS and contractors. I add that the closure of community hospitals in rural areas has put increasing pressure on acute hospitals and, indeed, community nurses. That has exacerbated the situation, as others have set out in this debate.
We need to assess the impact of Covid and the delays in diagnosis and treatment. We need to consider the impact on the morale of front-line medical and nursing staff. I applaud the fact that the Government are looking at the pension cap, which has been addressed by others today. We need to look at models such as that agreed by senior judges, which I think would be acceptable to all parties; that seems a good model to use.
In the briefing preparing for today, I noticed that one concern is that the need for regulatory reform has been extended at the moment only to regulating physicians and anaesthetists. When will that be extended and in what timeframe to, for example, general practitioners and all doctors generally? That goes to the heart of having a positive, cohesive approach.
I have a question for the Minister. Bearing in mind that some 15% of the population live in an area served by dispensing doctors—in rural, isolated, sparsely populated areas—how do the Government intend to deliver healthcare in those settings on the same basis as in urban settings?
I conclude with parity of esteem. My father was appointed as one of the first ever general practitioners in 1948. His brother eventually became a general consultant. He referred to my father rather affectionately as a panel doctor. Until then we end this contest and conflict between hospital consultants and senior GPs, I do not believe we will achieve the parity of esteem that best serves patients and the health service.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I too applaud my noble friend Lord Patel for tabling this important debate. As he and many others have said, the NHS is broken; I really do not think that is any exaggeration. The fact is that the demand for GP services has increased over the years, as we know and as others have mentioned. It is incredible when you think about it that between 1990 and 2010 life expectancy increased by 4.2 years. People are living longer with more long-term and complex conditions. Remarkably, over 15 million people now live with at least one long-term condition. Where do these people go? To their general practitioner, so it is no surprise that they are in trouble. The effects of the pandemic are going to be with us for years. Where do all these tens of thousands of people waiting for treatments, assessments and so on go? They go to their GP, who cannot really help them, but they are desperate.
The impact of all this on GPs is colossal, made worse by the falling number of GPs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to. We now have a downward spiral in primary care as GPs suffer ever greater pressure of work, ever longer days, burnout and the sense that they cannot deliver the quality of service that they wish to for their patients. A growing number are leaving the service or planning to do so—terrifying numbers of GPs are now actively engaged in the business of how and when exactly they will leave the service.
A family member is cutting their hours, as are many others, so, when we talk about the number of GPs, are we talking about full-time equivalents or are we merely talking about heads, many of whom will be working part-time? A family member GP works at a practice with 13 GPs but only three are now working full-time—he himself has cut his hours to six sessions—yet about 10 years ago I believe that all of them were working full-time. Of course, those who are working full-time are working 12 hours a day so they are literally burned out, and I watch that happen.
A common response is that GPs must employ more pharmacists and nurses. That is right, of course, but this has been happening for years and the main problem is that these people are also very hard to recruit. There are not enough of them. The big issue, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is of course the inadequate level of prevention and preventive work within general practice even today. I must say that I feel that every general practice should have a dietician to take on the vast numbers of people in this country suffering from obesity, many of whom take up large amounts of a GP’s time. Frankly, they need to go to a dietician and get things sorted out. Perhaps that is rather a tough view but it is mine. Another specialism that I feel could take on a lot of work in a preventative capacity is psychological therapy. How many people go to their GP because they are basically a bit depressed, unhappy or whatever it is? Again, if a GP could really make sure that people’s distress was being handled, I think that would make an enormous difference.
I want to address a further point. I regard the Pulse proposal to end GP contracts and bring the vast majority of GPs into trusts as salaried doctors as foolish and potentially costly and dangerous. Too often, Governments seek to resolve the problems of the NHS through reorganisation, but this distracts all the managers from top to bottom into worrying about their own jobs, their colleagues’ jobs and so on instead of focusing on patients, and the patient focus gets lost. Personally, I would warn against revolution and say that, really, we need to deal with all these things through evolution. As I have said, a lot could be done by bringing in preventive personnel who could alleviate a lot of the problems of GPs. Employ more medical and pharmaceutical staff, psychological therapists, dieticians and nursing staff—definitely, yes.
Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned, the Government need to sort out the pensions crisis rapidly and urgently. I hope that the Minister can give us an update today on what exactly the Government plan to do on this, because very senior and valuable doctors are leaving the NHS every day because of this problem. We cannot afford for this to be delayed at all, so please could the Minister give us some help on that one?
As a Dutch GP who came to work in the UK said recently, GPs are not the problem:
“They are knowledgeable, driven and hard working.”
He said that the NHS structure, secondary care and the media are the problem. I do not know what to make of all of that, but we need to value our GPs—that is what I take from that. We need a serious review and urgent support to ensure the sustainability of the primary care services that we value so highly. I strongly support the proposal of my noble friend Lord Patel to establish a special committee in this House to take on this work.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. Like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this debate and introducing it with his usual thorough and considered approach. It is particularly timely, given the recent Health and Social Care Committee report’s conclusion that healthcare providers in England are facing
“the greatest workforce crisis in their history.”
We have heard this from many speakers today. A cancer specialist wrote last weekend in the Daily Telegraph that NHS general practice had reached the “point of no return” and was “irrevocably broken”, citing that, since 2013, 474 practices had closed permanently, affecting 1.5 million patients.
We hear consistently about the crisis of patients not being able to access doctors, with only 56% of patients reporting that they had had a good experience in making an appointment and 53% saying that they found it easy to get through to the practice on the phone. Most worryingly, the survey also found that 55% of people—up by over 13% over the past year—said that they had avoided making a GP appointment, with the major reason being that it was too difficult.
Many GP practices have taken on the system of triaging patients. Although I understand that this can have some benefits for doctors, it can also be very intimidating. I have had an experience of a very aggressive triaging doctor shouting at me when I was asking for a doctor to come to my very sick elderly mother. It was extremely upsetting, especially because it was followed by a refusal to attend. People who are stressed or unwell are unable to deal with being treated like that, and it creates a barrier to people receiving the care that they should.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, mentioned, the result of this can be that people give up trying to see their GP and go straight to A&E instead, causing increased overcrowding there, with the knock-on effect of ambulances being unable to discharge patients and then unable to attend other urgent cases. Although we are being urged to stay away from A&E, if patients cannot access their doctor, it may be their only option to get care. There is an enormous loss of faith in GP services. A British Social Attitudes survey found that, since 2019, the proportion of patients who were satisfied with their GP services has plummeted from 68% to 38%, the lowest level on record.
It is clear that GPs are also feeling hugely under pressure. A report published by the Health Foundation charity paints a picture of high stress and low satisfaction with workload among UK GPs. Just one in four UK GPs are satisfied with the time that they are able to spend with patients—appointment times are among the shortest of the 11 countries surveyed. As we heard, only one in four GPs in England is now working full time, and most GPs work three days a week or fewer.
Although I am sure that the pandemic has exacerbated this situation, the cracks were there before. One of major things that has gone wrong is that many doctors now do not know their patients. There is enormous benefit in knowing your GP, especially for the elderly, those with small children or those with serious and ongoing health issues, and it makes it much easier for GPs to treat them. I accept that that is not always the case for younger and healthier people, who may need to see their GP very infrequently.
Last year, a Norwegian study published in the British Journal of General Practice demonstrated this. It showed that those who had the same doctor for between two and three years were about 13% less likely to need out-of-hours care, 12% less likely to be admitted to hospital and 8% less likely to die that year, rising to 30%, 28% and 25% respectively after they had had the same doctor for 15 years. Meirion Thomas, whom I referred to earlier, highlights that continuity of care is crucial in early cancer diagnosis. Survival rates in the UK lag behind almost all comparable high-income countries. Recent research has shown that 37% of patients with cancer in the UK present in A&E with acute symptoms and with advanced disease associated with a poor prognosis.
The Norwegian report stated:
“It can be lifesaving to be treated by a doctor who knows you”.
Smaller practices delivered this—yet, in the UK, the trend has been for GP practices to become bigger and pool their patients, thus eroding the relationship between doctors and patients. Although patients over 75 in the UK are given a named doctor, some doctors interpret this as just having to look at the patient’s records. Although I understand that patients who wish to be seen urgently cannot always see their GP that day, it is impossible for a doctor to be responsible and deliver appropriate care for a sick elderly patient without ever meeting them. Older GPs say their job satisfaction came from knowing patients, often whole families, and caring for them through the years. Yet so many doctors training as GPs then leave or work as locums because the pay is much better and there is less form filling.
The job has changed in other ways too. The head of the Royal College of General Practitioners recently said that family doctors were working at an intensity that was “unsustainable”, leading to many cutting their hours or taking early retirement—other speakers have referred to this. I gather that, on average, a doctor is asked to deal with 40 patients in a day, with some GPs being asked to see closer to 50. Apparently, GPs feel that the right number is probably around 30. This overload is leading to burnout and early retirement, as we have already heard. The Royal College of General Practitioners has said that 65% of GPs say patient safety is being compromised due to appointments being too short.
What can we do to improve all this? We had much better primary care 20 years ago; the damage started in 2004 with the change in the GP contract. We urgently need a system that works both for patients and doctors, but a health system needs to be patient-focused. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, this is about caring for people. Training more GPs is perhaps an easy answer, but people also need to be encouraged to look after their own health so that they have fewer visits to a doctor and are healthier for longer—prevention is absolutely key. Health checks are very important. We should also include mobility checks. People who cannot exercise well can tend to put on weight, leading to diabetes and heart problems, and checks would also help the prevention of hip and knee problems.
I welcome the new women’s health strategy for England, which will tackle the gender health gap and improve the health and well-being of women and girls. We must make it advantageous for doctors to work in a practice rather than being a locum. We need to cut down on the number of patients they are asked to see daily, and make the job more enjoyable and satisfactory for them—less stress might encourage more to work full-time. We also need to encourage doctors to know their patients again; the system works best when doctors know their patients and patients have faith in their doctors. This will lead to better outcomes and help ease pressure on the whole system. If that is the case, Zoom appointments and phone calls—which can cut down on time—can be beneficial, but if a doctor does not know their patient, it is much harder to treat them satisfactorily in this way.
The NHS app is excellent for things such repeat prescriptions. Could modern technology do more to remove some of the bureaucratic functions and form filling? Practice nurses should be able to deal with more conditions, while qualified pharmacists could give a wider selection of medication without a prescription. Community nurses are a huge asset, and we need to ensure that doctors work closely with them. Mental health takes up more and more time: are there better ways of dealing with this, rather than endless medication? In addition, we should encourage people with certain conditions not to go first to their GP—for example, those with back pain should go to a physiotherapist, osteopath or sports therapist, and people should go elsewhere for sight and hearing checks.
It is urgent that primary healthcare works better for patients, as well as being a job that is once again enjoyed by doctors. Bold steps need to be taken. I absolutely support the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, of setting up a Select Committee to look at this. If we can once again restore primary healthcare, it will greatly ease the whole health system and deliver better outcomes.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Patel on securing time for this important debate and support his proposal for a special committee. I declare my interests as a registered nurse and as president of the Florence Nightingale Foundation.
Other noble Lords have spoken about the medical workforce—in particular, general practitioners—and the need to invest in dentistry services. I will focus on the multidisciplinary teamwork in general practice and community care, with a particular emphasis on nurses, midwives and health visitors. In England, the primary care networks have enabled some community nurses and GP practices to work closely together at a local place level. This is building on a successful neighbourhood model that has been in existence for many decades. However, as briefing from the Queen’s Nursing Institute reminds us, a one-size-fits-all model does not apply because of the variety of geographical neighbourhoods—including rural and urban communities —and the different needs within those communities.
The Fuller stocktake report referred to by other noble Lords gives good examples of where services work closely together, successfully emphasising that the focus in both community and primary care should be on good outcomes for patients, not a one-size-fits-all approach for the sake of administrative uniformity. It is for that reason that the local integrated care boards should ensure that local practitioners, in partnership with the people they serve, are closely involved in determining the shape of local community services. It is widely recognised in government that there is a significant workforce shortage in the NHS, including in primary and community care. Yet everything points to the need for more care to be delivered in patients’ homes and in community settings, and this must be considered in workforce planning.
It is particularly vital that we educate more qualified specialist district nurses to lead and manage teams in the community. This in turn links to patient safety and quality outcomes. Similar investments are necessary in the mental health and learning disability community nursing services. Our extremely esteemed colleague my noble friend Lord Kakkar, who is a surgeon, defined this very accurately in his speech, so it is a pleasure to agree with him. There is significant untapped potential in the nursing workforce and many other healthcare professions including, for example, physiotherapy and occupational therapy. All healthcare professionals should be encouraged to use the skills and knowledge they have to the highest level of practice for which they have been educated. Instead, many feel frustrated that they are not enabled to work to their maximum potential. We need to be clear about career development for healthcare professionals working in community settings. This would aid retention and develop more independent and professional practice, meaning that many patients with long-term conditions would need to be seen by GPs only when their healthcare status changed significantly.
It is argued that the first 1,001 days from pregnancy to the age of two are a period of unique rapid development which lays the foundations for a child’s lifelong mental and physical health. Midwives, who lead interventions, including support with breastfeeding, smoking cessation and parental emotional well-being, have a positive and far-reaching impact on a child’s subsequent health development and life chances. The reverse is also true, and it is often during pregnancy that families get locked into the intergenerational cycles of inequality. For example, babies born to families on lower incomes are significantly more likely to be born underweight, have higher risks of mortality and experience of developmental problems.
The latest NHS workforce figures for England show that there were 541 fewer midwives in June 2022 compared with 12 months earlier. The drop in numbers was particularly pronounced in the north of England—evidence of the need to level up. The most recent Office for National Statistics figures show that 11,000 more babies were born in 2021 than in the previous year, so we have fewer midwives yet more births. The Institute of Health Visiting estimates that there is a shortfall of 5,000 full-time equivalents in England—a loss of over a third since 2015. It is worth noting that there were 536 child serious harm events in 2020-21 including, sadly, some child deaths. This was an increase of nearly 20% on 2019-20.
The health visitor performance matrices from August 2022 show that the lowest-performing local authorities had 4.2% of new birth visits within 14 days and 5% of two to two-and-a-half-year reviews, against the highest-performing local authorities, where the figures were 99.3% and 100% respectively. This means that, in some parts of the country, almost all children receive a two to two-and-a-half-year review whereas, in others, fewer than one in 10 children is assessed by health visitors for what are deemed to be mandated contacts. This kind of postcode lottery should be of significant concern to us all. Health visitors make a difference through improved identification of children with developmental delay and vulnerabilities by supporting families through early intervention and thus improving outcomes.
Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful to harness the skills and experience of all clinicians in the delivery of public health and to locate health and care services in easily accessible and prominent community facilities? This would enable healthcare teams to work closely together and make preventive care easily accessible to all. Early intervention is not only crucial to the health and well-being of families and children but good for community cohesion and economic productivity, as well as leading to savings in the cost of unemployment, crime and mental illness.
Finally, I turn to information from the Royal College of Nursing. In June this year, it reported that over half of nurse respondents in primary care said that there were insufficient nursing staff to safely meet the needs of their patients, and two-thirds said that the skill mix was not appropriate to meet the needs and dependencies of the service users and patients effectively. With advanced skills, registered nurses in primary and community care should be able to lead care for patients who have received accurate diagnosis and treatment plans from GPs and/or hospital consultants. Safely delivering high-quality care improves patients’ outcome and reduces readmission to hospital.
Key to patient outcomes are the structure and processes of health and social care services—and, I would add, housing. Investment is urgently needed to improve the digitalisation of patient records and test results in primary care. Patients want effective healthcare delivered by compassionate, professional, trained staff and to understand their treatment, which assists them in adhering to their own personal care plans. The latest idea in general practice is to be told, “You’ve had this blood taken, but if you don’t hear from us then everything is fine.” None of us trusts it, to be honest.
Local integrated care boards should be involved in planning the most appropriate structures and processes of services to meet their local need, but must also be mindful of ensuring uniformity of access to NHS-funded services in England; I recognise that not all services have to be delivered directly by the NHS. Access to community-based physical and mental health services is as important as the right to an operation or emergency care following an accident. Can the Minister assure the House that this aim will be supported by the Government to improve patient outcomes and reduce the disparity of access to primary and community services in England?
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, and to hear the voice of the nurse talking about their important role within primary and community care. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on securing this vital debate: I cannot think of a better champion to talk about reform of medical services—I will not use the word “NHS” because I think “medical services” is what we are discussing here today. I thank all the organisations that have sent us briefings.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I want to go back to 1947-48. My husband’s grandfather was a general surgeon at Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, as well as being a GP and a qualified pharmacist. He had to make the choice in 1948 and he chose the hospital. It was right for him. An amusing side note is that after his death, when we were clearing his house, his entire pharmacy was in the attic, in those glorious 19th century-type glass bottles. He took his joint role very seriously. One thing that has happened to general practice over the last 10 to 15 years has been the beginning of general practice specialisation, which is almost inevitable because of the specialisations of hospital doctors as well. I think that, although I have not heard much discussion of it, we should focus on that as well.
Primary care is the bedrock the NHS but, Cinderella-like, is often out of the limelight while providing that first point of essential contact for a patient, be it with their GP, the practice nurse or the healthcare assistant. But what is primary care? Always, the public will tell you that it is the GP, but we have heard in this debate today that it is so much more. It is community nurses; it is physiotherapists; it is occupational therapists; dentists; end-of-life care practitioners; health visitors; school nurses; and those who provide support to people with long-term conditions. And, of course, it is the invisible support staff who back them all up.
But primary care is broken and too many of those working in it are at breaking point too. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, helpfully laid out the real problems in her contribution. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson referred to some research. Unfortunately, research by GP Online, published in January this year, showed that GPs were completing 46 patient contacts a day, and the corresponding admin work that goes with it, which is 84% more than the 25 daily contacts recommended as a safe limit. Ministers have complained frequently, including during the recent leadership campaign, about too many part-time GPs, but that research also showed that, because of the 30% increase in paperwork over the last five years, most GPs are working 12 to 14 hours a day: that is one to three hours extra at the end of the day on admin alone, as routine, as well as being on call. One GP, responding to a publication of this survey, said, “It’s awful, it’s unbearable, there is too much to do to get it all done safely and if you try to be efficient, patients complain. I’m shattered and there is just no stopping the demand.” The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, spoke movingly about the increasing number of GPs leaving. This is why.
I come back to the more general strategic issue, outlined so well by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, who gave us an overview of the crisis facing us. The service has changed; the funding has changed. Twenty years ago, when Governments of all colours started to reduce the number of hospital beds on the grounds that people did not need to stay so long in hospital, which is absolutely right—although demography needs to be taken into account, and they have gone beyond that point—what failed to happen was an understanding that recovery time and support is needed in the community, and there was no corresponding increase in support, finance and reframing of primary care services. That is one reason we have the problem that we do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised the issue of sick notes, and perhaps reforms are needed there. I make the point that that is one of those admin jobs that has increased and grown. It may be that we have to review how sick notes are dealt with.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, talked about his experience of community care and said he was given no explanation of why it happened. I have to say, from a recent discussion with a person awaiting an assessment of care adaptations that would be needed to their home as their long-term condition was worsening, that no explanation was given other than that they would have this appointment. That individual was terrified that their house was going to be changed out of all recognition for things they did not want to happen. When they actually had the assessment, their life was transformed, but the difficulty was that for the three weeks between being told that someone was going to come and make changes to their home to the point at which that happened, the communication was not good enough. But I suspect that that is because the pressure on the service as a whole means that in a five-minute appointment, you cannot explain.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, was absolutely right to focus on carers, whether paid or familial. Yet again, communication to patients is vital. I agree too that social care is not fixed: it may be that the money coming in is now being paid from a different source, but where is it going to go? How are we going to improve the workforce in social care and the support? Familial carers are currently having to pick up extra burdens, such as the increase in virtual wards at home that we were discussing in an Oral Question just a day or two ago. In all the discussions, there has been no mention either of the extra support for familial carers of virtual wards or of primary care support, which must inevitably grow. So I ask the Minister: will there be support for primary care with the increase in virtual wards?
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, spoke of family hubs and the inverse care law: I think that was very powerful. I hope—as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said—the “not invented here” syndrome and not learning from excellent practice elsewhere will change within the NHS.
The problems in dentistry absolutely speak to the issues that GPs are beginning to face. Net government spend on dentistry in England was cut by over a quarter between 2010 and 2020. Over 40 million NHS dental appointments have been lost since the start of the pandemic, and 91% of NHS dental practices were not able to accept new adult patients, mainly because of the problems with the contract. That is a real issue because—as with primary care, particularly rural primary care—when there are inequalities, it is much harder to access those services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, spoke of the effective triage systems that are needed, and also how it can happen very poorly. She spoke powerfully about the need for patients to know their GPs. I absolutely agree with that, which is why I am concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said it: we do not need a certain number of GPs; what we need if we are reframing services is the right number of GPs to be able to support the population. It is all about the needs of patients and what we are expecting GPs to do, while accepting that technology is going to play a part and that support staff and other healthcare professionals will have an increasing role. If we start the discussion about reforms by saying we can manage with fewer GPs, we are deluding ourselves.
I do not think I have heard anyone mention the role of expert patients. I am lucky to be such an expert patient. I have a long-term condition; I have done the course—tick. I have to say that that has transformed my relationship with my GP and other staff. Hospitals often do not understand it: I was told once by a consultant when I had a temperature and had gone in that I knew too much about my disease. My specialist soon put him right, I have to say. But my GP surgery completely understood.
So we do need reform. We need to start afresh. Let us accept new technology and other roles, but the key issue must be that primary care remains free at the point of access, available as needed, with signposting and education for the public. The post-pandemic period is a good time for this, because the public have accepted changes. But we must have real investment in doctor training, campaigns to encourage GPs to come forward and, above all, we must get to grips with the current crisis so that we do not lose more of our really valuable primary care staff.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and thank him for bringing this debate before your Lordships’ House, which he did with his customary attention to detail, but also searing analysis of what is before us today. This has indeed been a very sobering debate, and I hope it will be of use to the Minister and also to the new Secretary of State, who of course we wish well in her endeavours.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, spoke of primary and community care as the bedrock of the health and social care services, and indeed it is the door through which most of us enter when we are seeking to access health and community care. However, our access to it and its suitability are deeply affected by the lack of co-ordination, resources, staffing and planning, as we have heard during the debate.
Dissatisfaction is running at an all-time high. This is not only a bad thing in itself but it affects confidence in the system. It is of increasing concern that those who should be making contact with their local GP are simply put off from doing so because they cannot access the service they require, not least because getting an appointment is beyond them, or so delayed, or difficult. This is not how it should be.
My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley hit the nail on the head when she reminded your Lordships’ House that people do not know or care who provides services; they just want the right service, at the right time, in the right way. People need to be seen as whole people and not only according to the bit of the system that is seeking to treat them. I think there is a very strong message for the Minister about the organisation of health and care services being around individuals and all that comes with them, rather than the other way round.
There are critical backlogs in both the sectors we are considering. There are some 1 million people waiting for care services within the community. The backlogs are a key factor in the dire ambulance delays that we are seeing, and they are added to by the number of patients who are in hospital beds when they should be in their own beds, either in their own homes or in a care setting—something about which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, spoke so clearly.
The Community Network, which is comprised of organisations including NHS Providers and the NHS Confederation, has called for the Government to treat waits in the community sector on an equal footing to backlogs in the acute hospital sector, including through the development of a plan to address these delays as well as accelerating work to improve the quality of national data collections in community care. Could the Minister confirm whether the department has explored this option, because it would be a helpful way forward?
The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, was right to put down a challenge to how systems are organised and about whether hospitals are the right place—the best place—for dealing with chronic conditions when there is so much opportunity to deal so much better with a number of these closer to home. I hope the Minister will reflect on this.
It is the case, as we have discussed so many times, that the issue of the workforce comes up time and again. We know that there is an increasing volume and complexity of demand, a rapidly aging population and, with that, huge workforce shortages. I must repeat the call for a long-term workforce plan to address what is a stark situation. Failure to address this will only exacerbate the backlogs and health inequalities still further.
The response so far has been disappointing, as we saw in the passage of the Health and Care Bill. This is not just about numbers, important though they are. It is also about what staff do, and whether we have the assessment available to make a judgment as to whether we have the right range of staff, as the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, referred to, to make sure that they can be available to meet peoples’ needs.
Although it is welcome that there are, as we have heard, additional roles to be developed and additional staff to be made available to work in primary care networks—including pharmacists, physiotherapists and link workers—and it is welcome that there is to be recruitment, there is a gap: how will general practices implement a multidisciplinary model of care, either within or across practices, which will embrace these roles? This is lacking, as we have seen from the King’s Fund investigation into this issue, and it is leaving staff isolated and demoralised. How will this be dealt with beyond recruitment? How will these additional and new roles come into play?
How will the fact that appointments are getting ever more difficult for people to get be dealt with? A GP Patient Survey found that only 56% have reported having a good experience of making an appointment, and there are early signs that the pressure on GPs is affecting patients’ experience of their appointment even when they actually do get one. Similarly, the British Social Attitudes survey showed that satisfaction with GP services fell to 38% last year, which is the lowest level ever recorded. What will be done to address this problem?
On GP numbers, my noble friend Lord Hunt again raised the important question about the reduction in GP training places. What is the thinking on this reduction? How does this square with the expectation that we need, and are told that there will be, greater numbers of GPs?
Improving access will require actions from across the health and care system, and it is critical that integrated care systems and their partners consider how they will provide support to general practice to improve access in the short term. How will this manifest itself within the new integrated care boards?
As we know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, referred to, the pandemic accelerated new ways of working, including a rapid uptake of existing digital tools to deliver patient care. While this has benefits for patients and staff, there is a proportion of the country who are digitally excluded or who have needs that make digital access less appropriate for them. How will this be addressed so that nobody is left behind?
Finally, I refer to the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for a special Select Committee to take forward how we can address the lack of co-ordination in the primary care sector. I hope that the new Secretary of State will consider this worthy of consideration, because there is no doubt that the debate today has shone a very clear light on the fact that we need to step back, make the change and build the system around the needs of the patient, and not the other way around.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, before I begin the response to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and other noble Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will be concerned by the news from Buckingham Palace about concerns over the health of Her Majesty. I am sure that the thoughts of all noble Lords are with Her Majesty and her family at this time.
I begin by thanking once again the noble Lord, Lord Patel, not only for introducing this debate but for our many conversations and his advice. In fact, he has given me so much advice, I sometimes think about calling him “uncle”. It has all been part of my learning—understanding the processes and the whole range of our health service, as well as some of the challenges. That was very well demonstrated in the noble Lord’s opening remarks and in some of the issues he has raised with me over time.
What has been interesting in this debate is that lots of people have different views on answers. We agree that there are problems and that they have to be fixed, and we want to see better integration. Some say that we need a revolution; others say that it should not be a revolution but evolution; and others would criticise evolution as piecemeal. We have to be very careful about that. Some say GPs are central to primary care; others say that it should be not only GPs but a range of workers. In fact, a number of GPs complain that they spend far too much time on things that could be done by other professionals in their practice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, rightly said that we should be careful about a one-size-fits-all approach and trying to suggest or impose one model that would work everywhere. It has to be community led, in many ways. In answering, it is really important to address these issues. I suppose the final debate we had was of some saying that we need a clear distinction between primary and secondary care, and others saying that we do not, as the lines are blurry and what is important is that patients are able to access the health and care services they need. All of that is part of this whole debate, which I found fascinating.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, reminded us that we are now talking about an integrated health and social care system. It is absolutely right that we look to make sure that its social care aspect has parity with the rest of health. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for consistently reminding me and the Government about that.
We all agree that primary and community care are essential services. As a Government, we recognise that they are under significant pressure, as do noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Eccles asked why this is. There are a number of reasons. At the moment, we have more doctors and nurses than ever before but, as many noble Lords reminded me, demand is outstripping supply. Think about our awareness. During the passage of the Health and Care Bill, we spoke about the importance of mental health and about it having parity. Think about how seriously we took mental health only 30 years ago: many syndromes—post-traumatic stress disorder, for example, and others—were not even recognised until the 1980s. Before then, people were just told to pull themselves together or have a stiff upper lip. Now we recognise how important it is to tackle people’s mental well-being.
Some noble Lords will remember a debate I took part in recently on neurological disorders. When I asked my team for a briefing, I asked them to list all the neurological disorders so that I could understand this. They said, “Minister, do you realise that there are 600 of them?” Imagine that awareness of 600 disorders and how many people are needed right across the country. That shows the challenge we face in demand outstripping supply. It also highlights one of the points behind the question from the noble Lord, Lord Patel: given that all this demand is outstripping supply, is it really appropriate to continue with a model from 70-odd years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, rightly said? The debate we are having is on whether it should be revolution or evolution, and how we ensure it is patient centred.
Another important point mentioned by a number of noble Lords was prevention. It should not be about waiting for people to get ill and then, hopefully, curing them; it should be about prevention in the first place. Individuals, bodies and organisations can all play a key role in that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, it is right that the voice of patients is heard. No one should ever say again to the noble Baroness—I would not dare to—that patients know too much. We want patients to have a partnership with their health and care professionals, so that they understand the issues and so the patient feels valued and understood—a number of noble Lords mentioned this when it comes to named GPs, for example.
It is critical that we look at prevention. That shows that it does not always have to be the GP. I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, had been here, he would have talked about the Bromley by Bow Centre and how there are a range of skills and individuals there. It is not about only the GP but about making sure people have healthier lifestyles. I think the website of the Bromley by Bow Centre and others is about creating health. In his book, Turning the World Upside Down, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, says that we have to shift away from cures to prevention, not just curing people but creating health. We have seen a lot of progress in the thinking about how we get that into the system.
I will respond to some of the general points that a number of noble Lords made. To draw again on the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, he said that we should also look to other countries. We have this view—not just the United Kingdom but the whole western world— that the rest of the world can learn from us. However, as he said, if you go to some of these countries which have challenges such as resource challenges, they have some very innovative solutions. Some of them have defined completely new roles which would not be recognised here. These people are trained for shorter times and are more specialised, and although the doctors’ lobbies in those countries have railed against them, he said that it gives you effective outcomes. Perhaps we have to look at some of the traditional roles, such as doctors and nurses—we are seeing physicians’ assistants, for example, and specialists. I hope that the rest of the medical profession will be open to completely new hybrid roles, which are not the same as those of 70 years ago.
My noble friends Lady Hodgson and Lord Eccles talked about the right to see a named GP. We understand that, but not every patient will want a named GP. We have to get the balance, because the technology gives us a better service but it is not just about that; it is about people’s first interface. They want to speak to someone who understands their condition. Clearly, however, in other cases it will be important to see a named GP. At the moment, all practices are required to assign their registered patients to an accountable GP but, as my noble friend Lady Hodgson reminded us when we debated the Health and Care Act, that does not mean that the individual always responds. In theory, they should be responding, so one thing we want to look at in more detail is why that is not happening in many places.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talked about how we are growing the GP workforce. There are concerns. One of the things I promised in previous debates—I have not had the answer yet; I hope I get it before I leave office, whether that is this week or whenever—is on this cap on training numbers. Yes, we are training more GPs, but at the same time we are losing an awful number of them. Programmes on retention are in place, and the issue of pensions is clearly important. Sadly, I am not able to update the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on this; I have asked the question but, let us put it this way: discussions are taking place with another government department. When I worked in other areas of commerce and elsewhere, quite often people reminded me that the price of acquisition is often more expensive than the cost of retention., so we should be investing in the retention of people who still want to work. However, we do not want any of these artificial retirement dates; people are all living healthier lives. We are increasing the number of trainees but we also have to look at morale and retention. A number of proposals are there, but how do we make sure that they get out?
The GP business model is changing—it should not be one size fits all. I talked about the Bromley by Bow Centre; I speak to some GPs who are concerned that their practice is seen as too small. They say, “I am under pressure to go into a practice, but I give a personalised service and I worry about the service we are getting.” At the other end, you get these large health centres that are taking on some functions which were previously secondary care. I understand that challenge, therefore we agree that the primary care entry point should be about multidisciplinary teams. It should be making use of the best capacity we have and looking at alternative sources of expertise, such as dieticians, a physiotherapist or social prescribing, which a number of noble Lords mentioned during the passage of the Health and Care Act.
We made an announcement in July about reforms to dentistry. These are not the complete reforms; there are still conversations around the UDA, for example, and what is felt to be fair remuneration, but we have at least made some progress in those conversations and now have a collaborative discussion. For some people, that is not enough and we have to speed up; I completely understand that, but at least we are making some progress. Up to now they have just been at loggerheads, and we have had others saying, “You’ve got to look at the UDA, which is the source of all these problems.” We are now looking at that, and I pay tribute to the BDA and others for those collaborative conversations.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering always raises the issue of rural practices—and rightly so; it is critical that we are reminded of it. We recognise that there are issues with retention in certain areas, and one thing we have been doing with the new medical schools is understanding that people are more likely to stay where, or close to where, they are trained. That is why we have been looking to open some schools in those areas. That will not solve everything. My noble friend also talked about rural connectivity. That issue is widely recognised at the top of the NHS, which is looking at connectivity to be managed locally and the availability of networks. I had a meeting earlier this week with a number of different suppliers on telecare. The meeting was about the switch from analogue to digital, but an issue that came up was the poor provision in many rural communities. One conversation we must have is with the broadband suppliers. Fortunately, technology will fill in a lot of this—we are seeing the cost of satellite coverage dropping and more support for fill-in systems—so I hope we will be able to improve on that. We want to recruit more people in rural areas.
Let me just make sure that I have tackled all the points raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, talked about the steps to discharge patients. It is the Government’s priority to make sure that people are safely discharged. The moment the previous Secretary of State came into office just before the summer, he got together the heads of the various parts of the NHS and spoke to particular trusts and said, “What can we do to clear the pipeline to make sure that people can leave quickly to the community, and what challenges are there?” I know that my new boss, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health, will look at that.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of seeing a GP in person, and technology. One challenge we have had is that sometimes there is too much technology. We want the NHS app to be the gateway. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, referred to the recent report by Policy Exchange, and I thank Policy Exchange and the other experts who sent us all notes to help us with this debate. When you go on the NHS app, you can, in theory, book an appointment—but you cannot. Then I go to my GP’s website, which says, “You can book an appointment”, but when I go to book one, it says, “You can’t book that appointment; you have to phone us up.” Then we get back to the problem of 8 o’clock in the morning—and not just Monday, but all the way through the week.
One very sensible question is why you have to phone that day for the appointment. Can we look at a way to ensure that you can book today for up to, say, seven days in advance? We have gone backwards. When I was ill as a child, my mother could pick up the phone, phone the local GP and if they could not see you that day, if it was not that urgent, they would say, “How about next Tuesday?” How do we get back to that situation? We are still trying to understand those challenges and why that cannot be done. It says on the website that you can book an appointment, but when you press it, you cannot do so.
We are trying to make the NHS app the gateway. If I get an appointment at my local hospital, I think, “Oh great, I will just look at the appointment on my NHS app.” It does not appear there. I then get a text from that hospital that says, “Please go on to our portal.” So I have the NHS app, my GP website and my hospital website. This is the challenge. They have all said, “Yes, we want technology”, but it is about the processes behind that. On top of that, we all have to know how to make sure it works and to plug the gaps. I was asked to go to have an ECG at a primary care centre. I thought, “That’s very clever. Good, that works much better”, and was told that the consultant would phone me a week later for a conversation. I am quite relaxed about having a phone consultation, but when the consultant phoned me a week later and started talking, I asked, “Sorry, did you see my ECG from last week?” He said, “What ECG?” Then I said, “I tell you what, I can tell you the exact time and date, you can get it and then we can have the conversation.” He said, “Oh, don’t worry about that, I will make a new appointment for you.” We can have all the technology in place, but how do we ensure that the people processes are in place too?
This shows that we all have a role to play in this. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, often brings up, rightly, the amendment on workforce planning. We talked about this during the debate. There is local-level workforce planning in the ICS. Individual practices and centres have their workforce planning. Many noble Lords will know that regarding the long-term, the department commissioned Health Education England to look at and report on those drivers. We have also commissioned NHS England to develop the long-term workforce plan for the next 15 years, including long-term supply projections. Also, under the Health and Care Act 2022, the Secretary of State has a duty to report every five years at minimum describing the NHS workforce planning and supply system. A lot is being done on workforce planning. One reason we did not accept the amendment at the time was the timeframes, and whether they would change between one report and another. We wanted to look at it in the long term, and for it to come from the NHS and to be from the bottom up.
I have gone on for far too long, but I really hope that this debate has shown everyone not only that all political parties are committed to reform but that at the same time, we must ask ourselves some very big questions. In some ways, it is a valid criticism that we are tinkering with a system that was designed 70 years ago. We must evolve a system rather than tinker with a system. We must tackle the supply of workforce, and we must look at the roles as defined today and whether there are newer roles. Can we learn from overseas, from some of the new roles that are defined elsewhere? Is everyone ready for change? Sometimes, I am not entirely convinced that every player in this system is ready for change. I have had GPs say, “I can take on more patients in my area, but the problem is that the system does not incentivise me to take on a patient elsewhere. They must deregister then re-register with me.” I hope that some of the primary care network initiatives we have will help that, but we all must accept that the current system has just been tinkered with for the last 70 years.
I am not necessarily concerned about the distinction between primary and secondary. It is important that the patient speaks to the right person when they need to, whether in person or remotely, and that they get the right follow-up care. I have had conversations about the model with the noble Lord, Lord Patel. As it is, if you can see a GP, you get five to 10 minutes. Noble Lords rightly expressed the pressures of that. You then hope for a referral. There must be a better way. Some patients are voting with their feet and getting direct referrals to consultants, and others are not. We do not want that two-tier service. We want everyone to have the same access.
The Government must do more. We clearly understand that. Maybe we are not doing it quickly enough, but we must look at the whole system and the roles as defined, while ensuring that it is not “one size fits all”. What is appropriate for one area and one population is not the same as what is appropriate for others. One of the really interesting things that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, when talking about community workers, was that these are people who know about 120 people in their location. They know the families, they are trusted, they go out and knock on the doors of families to ensure that they are all right and help them with their diets and lifestyle. That is being tried in a couple of wards in London. We look forward to the results, but it might be revolutionary in terms of prevention.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and all noble Lords. There were more specific questions that I did not answer. I will read the Official Report and write to noble Lords in response to those questions that I have been unable to answer today.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, at the outset, I respectfully associate myself with the Minister’s comments and wish Her Majesty the Queen well.
I thank all noble Lords who spoke, and the Minister in particular for taking the debate and answering at length. Your Lordships spoke not just with passion but with real research behind it in finding out what the problems are with primary and community care. I hope the Minister got the information he needed, as was highlighted by everybody.
It was striking that in this debate, unlike others, no speaker tried to get at the government policies. There were no combative speeches; they all tried to help resolve the problem we now face in primary and community care, which must urgently be fixed. There is one message I suggest the Minister takes back to his ministerial colleagues—by the way, it is a good idea that they and their advisers all get a copy of today’s debate. In his meetings with his colleagues, the Minister should highlight the important issues that were raised today. I still say that primary and community care are in intensive care; if we do not rescue them soon, they will die. The problem will not be worse any more, because it will not be there.
I could summarise every speech, but I will not do that. They all made very important points. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, please keep coming back; as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said, you are not past your sell-by date.
I ask the Minister to take this matter seriously. We hope the new Secretary of State recognises that primary and community care need fixing. I appreciate all the support I had for my proposal for a special Select Committee and hope the Liaison Committee listened very carefully. I thank noble Lords for today’s debate and for contributing; I appreciate it very much.
GCSE and A-level Results: Attainment Gap
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the GCSE and A-Level results on the widening gap in attainment for children and young people in the North East of England compared to those in the South of England.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I too associate myself with the wishes and prayers that people have for the Royal Family.
I submitted this topic for consideration, albeit in a short debate, because of my serious concern about the increasing number of vulnerable children in the north-east of England. The widening gap in attainment seen in the recent secondary school results exemplifies this.
Many organisations have done work on this and much research has been done on regional disparities. I do not have time to go through those statistics and all the different views, but I thank those who briefed me and are so concerned about this. It is clear from all of it that disparities arise not because children themselves are less bright. As I have said all my political life, I have not seen that children from the north-east are thicker than those in the rest of the country. Therefore, we have a responsibility to address why they end up the way they do, with much poorer attainment and more vulnerability than is appropriate or necessary.
What, then, explains this? The gap in A-level achievement between the south-east and the north-east has widened from 5.3% to 8.7% between 2019 and 2022. The north-east had the lowest number of students achieving A* and A grades at A-level—only 30.8%, compared with 39.5% in the south-east. We have to ask: what is going on? What leads to this?
The Northern Powerhouse Partnership says that we need to look at three things. The first is long-term deprivation and child property. Shockingly, the proportion of children living in relative poverty has risen more in the north-east than anywhere else. We had got it on a downward curve, and it was at least stable for a couple of years with the new Government post 2010, but since 2014 it has risen from 26% to 38% of children in the region living in relative poverty. I find that shocking in today’s world. This reflects not just unemployment but a low-wage economy, where families with only one earner are living below the poverty line. That affects the children.
Research shows that the intersection between long-term deprivation and certain ethnic groups, including white working-class children, is the strongest predictor of low attainment. The north-east has double the national average of pupils in these high-impact groups. That is why the allocation of funding for public services, in particular education, should reflect levels of deprivation, not political preference.
The second problem that has been identified is Covid and the pandemic. Pupils in the north-east missed 15.3% of lessons in the academic year 2020-21 and the autumn term of 2021-22, compared with 11.6% in London and 11.9% in the south-east. Significantly higher numbers of pupils were simply not in school, and we know that significantly high numbers did not have access to the equipment necessary for home learning.
The third thing is therefore the failure of the education recovery initiative, including the poor delivery of the National Tutoring Programme, to deliver effective catch-up. In the north-east, only 58.8% of target schools were reached by the National Tutoring Programme. It was 100% in the south-west and 96.1% in the south-east. What a pity that the Government did not accept the advice of their adviser at the time about what was necessary for effective catch-up.
I could talk about this for a very long time, but I know this is a short debate. But there we are: policies have been pursued over the recent decade and beyond which, far from levelling up, have increased disadvantage and the lack of opportunities in my region. As far as I am concerned, they are the salt of the earth. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham knows, it is God’s own country. However, we are letting children down massively.
I hope that the incoming Cabinet begins to understand this and produces activity to address it. We have the greatest inequality in our country of any western nation. Are we really proud of that? Are we really proud that we have less opportunity for young people here than in the rest of Europe? I think not. Child poverty was reducing in the north-east when I was in government. There was still a lot to do—I am not saying everything was wonderful—but we had begun to address those issues.
I cannot tell noble Lords the distress when I meet family members and colleagues who are running food banks and other programmes or working in schools at the moment. They are seeing day in, day out, families not just struggling but falling off the edge. The number of children not in school—we do not know where they are—has increased, as has the number of people who simply cannot get through the week without going to neighbours or friends for support and the number of schools which have lost teachers over the summer because their funding went down. We heard from the outgoing Chancellor that he changed the method of allocating money so that it did not go first and foremost to areas of deprivation and people living in poverty. That has to be changed. Members here have heard me go on before about the index of multiple deprivation. The Government not using it in their levelling-up fund is nonsensical.
We have to recognise the depth of this problem. It should not be a surprise to noble Lords or to the Government that deprivation and attainment are linked. I hope that in the promised announcements—I gather one announcement is due next week—the Government will tackle the fundamental problems faced by children. The Government will not achieve their ambition for growth if they ignore or neglect these issues because, in my view, the supply side is as important as the demand side, and we have heard very little about it. If the Government want productivity to improve and for employment to be at a higher level, addressing these issues in areas such as the north-east, which still depends on manufacturing, is critical. I hope the Government begin to understand this and address it.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, on securing this debate because it is a subject that is very close to my heart, as she well knows, as I have been chancellor of the University of Hull for the past 18 years. The reason I so wanted to take on that role was because it was not in the sunny, easy south, where educational and health opportunities are so much greater. I wanted to participate and really understand some of the issues in the north-east, in those areas where there are more intractable problems.
We know that inequalities are associated with socioeconomic, cultural and demographic factors, but the analysis is complex because there are young people from disadvantaged regions in London who achieve well. No one has a simple solution, but inequalities limit the potential of students’ life chances and impact on the productivity of regional economies. Ensuring equity of educational opportunities is a moral and ethical priority and, as I have said, an economic necessity. It underpins a robust competitive skills economy. Many good comments were made in the levelling-up White Paper about education and I very much hope that Simon Clarke, the new Secretary of State, will follow up on them, as will the fourth Secretary of State for Education in four months, Kit Malthouse—but how delighted we are to see our enduring, persistent and splendid Minister, my noble friend Lady Barran, still with us.
There is no doubt about the vital work that schools do to educate future generations. The Covid pandemic created unprecedented pressures and challenges for the education system. Much work has been done by the Sutton Trust, the Education Policy Institute and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, said, the Northern Powerhouse Partnership. Long-standing, intractable structural inequalities and economic disparities have been exposed and exacerbated. Those without space to study, without IT access or who have parents without IT skills have suffered most. Disadvantaged communities are less likely to have IT equipment to access online learning. They are less likely to have a learning space or access to broadband and data. Additionally, absenteeism—a persistent problem in the north-east—has substantially increased. The habit of regular school attendance, once broken, takes time to rebuild.
I welcome the many interventions that the Government announced, but we need to refine them and ensure that the north-east benefits from them. I hope the Minister can inform us of early signs of influence that the National Tutoring Programme has had. How can we enhance take-up in the areas most in need and with lower take-up?
Staffing problems are always serious. We need quality teachers. Schools are struggling to attract dedicated teaching staff, and areas of limited social mobility often struggle the most. Could the Minister comment on what benefits she envisages the levelling-up teacher salary premiums will have on schools in the north-east? I have strongly commended the Department for Education’s Opportunity for All White Paper. I wonder, though, what we are learning about EIAs, and whether there are any plans to modify them.
I believe the Government have a great responsibility, as do education authorities. However, the responsibility is much wider than that. I will mention one beacon: the Ron Dearing UTC in Hull, which had dramatic success and celebrated outstanding GCSE and level 2 technical results, surpassing expectations, even though its year 11 cohort of 150 spent much of their time studying online. It is an impressive demonstration of partnership. Reckitt, Siemens and Smith+Nephew work in partnership with schools and education institutes.
I particularly commend the work of the University of Hull, which has gone far beyond the call of duty to provide courses, programmes, letterbox delivery of online learning, “step up, move on” programmes for children in care and student mentors. It has delivered all manner of activities and IT skills from within its own budget and has long taken an enlightened and responsible view on the evident economic and social deprivation in the area. I particularly commend Professor Becky Huxley-Binns, the pro-vice-chancellor for education, the Fair Access Office and Humber Outreach Programme; they have really made a difference. We need a concerted approach. We must do more, and I believe we can.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend for securing this debate about regional inequality. It also raises the question of the value of GCSEs and A-levels. On the regional point, perhaps the most significant issue that I will raise is that of child poverty, which is up in the north-east by seven percentage points since 2010-11, against a background of it having begun to improve at one stage. Teachers never advance poverty as an excuse for lower attainment, but it can be a significant contributing factor. Attempts to narrow the attainment gap in the past decade or more have resulted in an ever-increasing narrowing of the curriculum and an ever-sharper focus on exam results, which has tended to leave many children, but poorer children in particular, with a less exciting and inspiring school experience.
In a recently published Times commission report, Michael Barber makes a proposal that I believe he picked up from the National Union of Teachers during his employment there: all primary schoolchildren should have what he calls a “bucket list”—I prefer an “entitlement” —of theatre trips, museum trips and sporting activities, and for secondary pupils he has an even longer list. Every child could and should access opportunities out of school that parents with the will and the means offer their own children.
Commentators have observed that there is potential everywhere but opportunity is far more restricted. The Times commission report, entitled Bringing out the Best: How to Transform Education and Unleash the Potential of Every Child, provides a trenchant critique of many aspects of our education system as it is at present, but it also offers much by way of practical policy suggestions and an optimistic vision of what education could and should be like.
So to the issue of GCSEs and A-levels: the first chapter of the commission’s report opens with the old saying that education is about the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel, yet in recent years the excessive focus on knowledge and exam results has not helped young people fulfil their potential. Education is of course not just about getting a job; much of what is missing from our curriculum is useful not just for employment but for life. Lucy Kellaway, the former Financial Times columnist, is now a teacher and made a profound contribution to the commission in these terms:
“I can feel that the exam system is disadvantaging my students. I think knowledge is really important but we’ve gone too far down that road now and our worship of exams is almost sinister.”
Many other views of that type are expressed in the commission’s report, but it also turns its attention to early years, noting that successful education systems—in Estonia and Finland, for example—do not see formal education begin until the age of seven but have highly regarded, respected and well-qualified systems of early-years provision from six months or possibly even younger. In England, many working with such young children have few qualifications and are paid the minimum wage—none the less working very hard and, I am sure, doing a good job. Even then, many parents say their childcare costs are higher than their rent or their mortgage, and the DfE’s own data shows that one-quarter of families find it difficult to meet their childcare costs. So poorer children often start at a disadvantage and fall ever further behind.
To return to GCSEs and A-levels, the commission has found that there is no other developed country whose teenagers sit as many high-stakes tests and that the focus on academic attainment has unbalanced the system. The report notes, too, the high financial cost of the system—as much as £6 million a year, cited in Parliament in 2008.
A further critique of the exam system comes from Dame Alison Peacock, chief executive of the Chartered College of Teaching, and Dame Mary Beard, who describes GCSEs as past their sell-by date. I might say that even the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking—who I do not think is in his seat—who introduced GCSEs, has called for them to be scrapped. Sarah Fletcher, the high mistress of St Paul’s Girls’ School, whom I have had the pleasure to meet, reported that 94% of teachers surveyed by the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference thought that much reform was needed. As for A-levels, the commission concluded that a baccalaureate- style exam is more relevant now than ever. That was of course the view expressed many years ago by Mike Tomlinson in advice to Tony Blair, a view that Mike Tomlinson still holds, but alas it was not then taken up by the then Prime Minister.
The new Government now have an opportunity to address the cost of living crisis in the north-east and all regions where people are struggling, but they also have the opportunity to reflect on the Times commission and to discuss a transformative and radical change to our education system and our curriculum to ensure that we really can unleash the potential of every child.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, for the opportunity to debate this vital issue. As she said, we are letting children down. Regional gaps are growing: in the north-east this year, 22.4% of pupils achieved the top GCSE grades of seven or above, compared to 32.6% in London. At A-level, 30.8% of pupils in the north-east achieved top grades of A or A*, compared to 39.5% in London.
This is partly about incomes. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that a 16 year-old’s family income is more than four times as strong a predictor of GCSE attainment as their local authority of residence. This will only get worse in the face of the current crisis impacting so severely on the household budgets of low-income families, which is why the Government simply must take action to support those on low incomes. This is not just about the regional divide in attainment; it relates to the levels of poverty and household income across the country.
Three days ago, on Monday, the Department for Education released its analysis of the gap in achievement between poor primary school pupils in England and their peers taking key stage 2 SATs. This showed that the gap in achievement has reached a 10-year high, and there is evidence that the impact of Covid on poorer pupils was much greater than on others, one key reason being that lessons moved online in March 2020. The pandemic has made a widening gap even wider. This year, only 59% of pupils met the standard in all SATs subjects, compared with 65% in 2019. But the number of poorer pupils—those qualifying for free school meals—was only 43%, compared to 65% for other pupils.
The Government have made a major commitment to levelling up. In their levelling-up plan, they said that they will give
“everyone access to good schools and the opportunity to receive excellent education and training.”
Does that commitment still stand? I ask because Schools North East said on 25 August that the north/south gap showed that the measures taken to combat the impact of the pandemic were insufficient. Its director said that the pandemic had exacerbated
“serious perennial issues, especially that of long-term deprivation”.
Schools North East has called for a support plan, so will there be one? Will the Government beware economic and geographical factors being mistakenly presented as educational ones, as Schools North East has asked?
We should remember that north-east primary schools perform well in national terms. That performance reduces at secondary level, and one key reason is a lowering of aspiration. Better careers guidance in primary schools, plus curriculum reform to increase the teaching of design, technology, digital skills and creative subjects in secondary schools, would help deliver the aspiration that the Prime Minister called for yesterday.
This debate is about comparing London and the north-east, but that can be done successfully only if the Government review why London performs so well when, not many years ago, it did not. Major investment was made in the London school system to very positive effect. Will similar investment be made in schools across the north-east and all the more deprived regions? Will educational investment areas already announced be extended to many more schools and places? There is an existing levelling-up commitment to create 55 new educational investment areas where attainment is currently weakest. I submit that this is not enough. In 2019, the Government announced Opportunity North East initiatives, with up to 30 schools benefiting from expert guidance from other schools. Might this be expanded?
Money is at the heart of all this. Will there be more catch-up funding? Will the planned national funding formula address the imbalances identified? Will there be better pay for good teachers? Crucially, and finally, what will happen to school budgets now? The rising costs of pay, supplies and energy will put serious pressure on them. If levelling-up means anything, it must surely mean protecting schools’ ability to support disadvantaged pupils properly; are the Government committed to that?
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I begin by expressing, on behalf of these Benches, our concern for Her Majesty, and the assurance of our thoughts and prayers for her and the Royal Family.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for securing this debate and pay tribute to the way she has stood up for the young people of the north-east throughout her distinguished career. I declare my interests as chair of the National Society and the Durham Diocesan Board of Finance.
I begin by celebrating the success of our young people and their teachers, particularly those of the north-east, in the recent A-level and GCSE examination results in both schools and further education colleges. However, we cannot hide away from the gap between the north and the south of England—the stats have already been quoted, so I will not repeat them. The most recent figures continue to show that disadvantaged communities in the north continue to be hit hardest by the Covid pandemic and its impact on learning. Poverty is in every north-east postcode and is set to worsen. Headlines include, for example:
“In 2020/21, the North East overtook London to have the highest rate of child poverty in the UK, at 38%”.
Too many of our communities are named in the top 20. Although the latest UK-wide figures show that overall child poverty rates dropped slightly in the first year of the pandemic due to the temporary £20 uplift to universal credit, detailed breakdown shows that child poverty continued to rise in areas such as Sunderland, Newcastle and Middlesbrough.
While there have been efforts by the Government such as the National Tutoring Programme, in March 2021 this had reached only just over 58% of the target schools in the north-east, compared with the 100% and 96.1% quoted earlier by the noble Baroness. As the Northern Powerhouse Partnership and Schools North East have pointed out, the lack of pre-existing infra- structure and the challenges around recruitment have exacerbated this problem. It is important to acknowledge that this has improved since the inclusion of school-led tutoring—which, if I remember rightly, was barred in the first instance. This suggests that the schools themselves are not at fault. How might this be further rolled out and secured?
The Government’s welcome package of spending is being invested in all our schools. However, this will not have the desired impact while schools are left to fund a deserved pay award and the increased costs of simply heating a school. This money will, in some cases, allow schools to stand still, but others will fall further behind. Strong multi-academy trusts will be unable to have the desired impact they are expected to achieve in the education investment areas if all the funding is required to keep open the doors of their existing schools. I had a conversation this week that predicted that, although it is not legally allowed, there will not be a single multi-academy trust in the north-east that will be able to set anything other than a deficit budget in the coming year.
The question of adequate funding in further education also arises here. Further education often helps people who have not done well at school to do better in their GCSEs, A-levels and other studies. What might be learned from that to help schools? The Government’s levelling-up White Paper set a target of increasing the percentage of children from the worst-performing areas meeting the expected standard in reading, writing and maths by over a third by 2030. This will be achieved only if there is a focus not only on education but on children’s health, the adequacy of the housing in which they live and their capacity to access online support through good broadband and so forth. We need a fully thought-through and resourced recovery plan that is bespoke for the north to tackle the real issues of disadvantage, lack of resource and teacher recruitment and retention.
I ask the Minister: how will Her Majesty’s Government look again at the issues facing the north-east region and work collaboratively with local leaders to find long-lasting solutions that are fully funded and grounded in research-led initiatives that work? The schools and colleges themselves have demonstrated they are not the problem, but they certainly must be part of the solution.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when I looked at this debate, I looked at the statistics and said, “Yes, there’s a problem”. I then looked at it again and said, “It ain’t the only place there’s a problem”. Then you look at it again and discover there are pockets of deprivation—let us face it, how many of us have read reports or sat through discussions in this place about deprivation in, for instance, rural towns and seaside towns? Wherever you have areas with lower economic expectation and financial support, you get worse educational results.
When you decide to invest in education as a parent or a child, you are putting huge effort in for something in the future. If there is nothing in the future that you feel that you can realistically attain, you are not going to do it. Also, with the best will in the world, you do not have the opportunity to support that person. The pandemic has proved this clearly. If you happened to be at home with your own computer in your own quiet room or space, you did fairly well; if you had one mobile phone between a family of four—we have all heard the horror stories—you did not do very well. Then you go back to an environment where you are behind and not achieving very well. So why would anybody sensible, who does not have any examples around them, invest time, effort and sacrifice to achieve? That child will not and, if their parents have had a bad experience, they probably will not push them either. We are in a cycle here and the Government have to intervene to change it, either through the school or by getting hold of parents—this is not easy; it takes time and is not just the responsibility of the Department for Education—to make sure that they value what they are going through and the sacrifice.
I remind the House of my interests in special educational needs and technical support. My pet subject is a classic example of this. If you have, say, a moderate dyslexic—that is the area I know most about—who is going through and is failing but is from a middle-class family, they find out why. The exam-passing classes make sure that they find out how you succeed, because they know you can. They know that it is not a big deal. They make sure that you can get through and get the support. They have the few hundred pounds, maybe few thousand pounds, to take on the system and push through.
If you come from an environment where nobody has passed any exams or maybe has passed just one, “What are you worrying about? You don’t need that for the jobs you’re going to do; you’ll do a job like me”. You can break that cultural link by making sure that teachers and the careers service start earlier and by making sure that people appreciate what is available to them by simply passing a few exams—you clearly do not have to be a genius to do that, because lots of people do it. All of us who have been to university know that, wherever it was, it was not manned by thousands of geniuses—there were some who had passed their exams who had trouble breathing without help, in my opinion.
If we go through this, it is the idea of reaching further in and making sure that people invest in it. That will make your job infinitely easier. We need support to get children through; many things have been talked about here that we could do, so I will not waste time by repeating them. Unless you get the intervention right to enable people to feel that the investment is not only beneficial but possible for the person doing it, they will not take it on. Your environment is a magnifying glass to your own personal cocktail of opportunity.
Unless we can make sure people understand that there is a possibility and a benefit from taking on these difficult choices, we will not do it. The levelling-up agenda should be something that addresses this. When the Minister replies—and I am, once again, reassured that she is still here; at least we have somebody who understands what is going on at the moment—will she give us some idea of how it ties in with the education agenda and how the departments are working together to achieve this? If there is a silver bullet, I very much doubt it is in the gun that the Department for Education by itself has at the moment.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing this important debate to the House and the many speakers who have spoken of the need to highlight the failings in the system in order to restore the horrendous inequalities we suffer as a nation because of the gaps we have in educating our children. I taught for almost 35 years, mainly in south Wales, which has a similar demographic to the north-east of England: low economic levels after years of deindustrialisation, low wages and low skill levels.
Bridget Phillipson MP, our shadow Education Secretary and a representative from the north-east, when responding to new research showing that half of pupils who get low grades at GCSE are already judged to be behind at age five, said: “The Conservatives are failing our children. Higher quality early years education is essential to boosting outcomes for children, but under the Conservatives, early years support is increasingly unavailable and unaffordable, putting this essential education out of reach of more families. Labour would be tackling this now, investing in children’s early learning through our children’s recovery plan and ending tax breaks for private schools to invest in driving up standards across all schools, for every child.”
I looked at the three-year research project by Professor Major of the University of Exeter to seek to understand why successive Governments have failed to address an issue that has continued to plague England’s education system for several decades. Failure to get a grade 4 in both English language and maths GCSE—notwithstanding my noble friend’s issues with GCSEs—is a strong indicator that teenagers lack the basic levels of literacy and numeracy needed to function and prosper in life after school.
In all my experience as a front-line classroom practitioner, one of my favourite phrases was, “Try to head off trouble at the pass.” I saw time and again that problems that were not picked up and resolved at an early stage of a child’s education persisted and deepened as they went through the secondary sector. Crucial to those issues was lack of literacy, especially reading and writing, but numeracy as well. Without these basic foundations, the rest of the curriculum becomes unreachable and progress is slow and poor.
The report Child of the North, from December 2021, highlighted that rising inequality costs the economy in lost potential. The research showed that children in the north have a 27% chance of living in poverty, compared to 20% in the rest of England. The report came up with a series of recommendations on how to narrow the gap and improve the lives and futures of millions of children in the north-east. Regional inequality was down to a lack of investment and it called for a £10 per child per week uplift in child benefit, bringing in free school meals, as we have done in Wales this week, and permanently feeding children during holidays. Investment in children creates high returns and benefits for society as a whole.
I have excellent examples of what Governments can do to deal with child poverty, because tackling child poverty has been, and continues to be, a priority for every Minister in the Welsh Government, who have to deal with one of the highest rates of deprivation in the UK. This includes continuing to strengthen families and communities through early intervention; prevention programmes, such as Flying Start and Families First, that you in England used to have but no longer; further developing an early childhood care and education system; improving employability; and creating secure, fair work and a living wage.
The current crises we face in these unprecedented times are difficult for those who have to make decisions, but burdens are never shared equally and children will suffer unequally. After two years struggling to cope with job losses, the pandemic, pay cuts and rising costs, families with children have been hit the hardest once again by the worst inflation seen in four decades.
I will leave the final thought to Imran Hussain, who is director of policy at Action for Children:
“Poverty destroys life chances. You cannot level up the country with millions of children in poverty so it’s vital the Government brings forward a credible plan to reduce poverty.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I start by echoing the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top. I send my thoughts and prayers to Her Majesty the Queen and the Royal Family.
I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions today and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, in particular for her deep experience and understanding of the multiplicity of factors that impact on outcomes, especially in the north-east.
Like the right reverend Prelate, I congratulate students up and down the country, who should be incredibly proud of what they have achieved this year. Our plans were to ensure students could sit their formal summer exams safely and fairly for the first time since 2019. My thanks go to students, teachers and, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, pointed out, parents for the picture we are now seeing. Results this year are higher overall than in 2019 and lower than in 2021, when there was a different method of assessment.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to the attainment gap in England between disadvantaged pupils and their peers. As your Lordships know, this had narrowed at primary and secondary levels between 2011 and 2019 before the disruption to our nation’s children and young people caused by the pandemic led to a widening of the gap. He asked for confirmation that the Government are still committed to the levelling-up programme and the different missions set out in the levelling-up White Paper. That is indeed the case. I hope that also addresses the point raised by the right reverend Prelate about the importance of addressing the kinds of issues that children in the north-east covered by today’s debate face by thinking about health, housing and wider infrastructure. In response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, departments are working together to make that happen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blower, asked about wider questions and challenges on wider change that, if I may, goes a little beyond the scope of this debate. However, I encourage her perhaps to try to secure a debate on those issues, as they warrant genuine discussion and understanding.
The Government are taking action to address the issues your Lordships have raised, both with specific support in place and broader interventions focused on disadvantage to give every child the education that allows them to achieve their potential. That aspiration is shared by all noble Lords in every part of this House.
When we look at schools in the north-east, it is clear that the quality of primary education is excellent, with 93% of schools rated as good or outstanding by Ofsted. This is reflected in the recent key stage 2 grades, which put the north-east as the second-placed region after London. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, will note this and share it with the shadow Secretary of State for Education; the Government absolutely agree on the importance of early years and a solid primary education. We have very much focused on starting with primary schools in the north-east, and I hope she will recognise the achievement of those schools in the region.
The picture at secondary is different. There have been significant improvements since 2018, in large part thanks to the work of the Opportunity North East programme, but in some local authorities too many schools are still rated by Ofsted as “Requiring improvement” or “Inadequate”. That is why we have plans to address this through the education investment areas programme and why we took powers to be able to intervene in schools which have been judged by Ofsted to be below “Good”—so “Inadequate” or “Requires improvement”—on multiple occasions. It is also why we are supporting the stronger multi-academy trusts to grow in the area.
The Government are investing in 55 education investment areas where we will implement a package of measures to drive school improvement and improve pupil outcomes. We are also investing to support our strongest trusts to expand, committing up to £86 million in trust capacity funding over the next three years, with a particular focus on these areas. Six of the 12 local authorities in the north-east are in education improvement areas: Darlington, Durham, South Tyneside and Sunderland, and Middlesborough and Hartlepool are also priority education investment areas. The priority areas will receive a share of around £40 million of additional funding for bespoke interventions to address local needs. Although I am not sure that Hull yet qualifies as being part of the north-east—it might be edging north as we speak—I would like to acknowledge my noble friend’s comments about the partnership between the University of Hull and local schools, and commend universities and businesses in the north-east for doing similar work.
My noble friend asked about our plans in relation to attendance. In the levelling-up White Paper, we announced that the department is planning a new attendance pilot in a group of education improvement areas. In the north-east, in the first year this will support pupils in Middlesborough in particular. We are also incentivising new teachers to work in disadvantaged areas through our levelling-up premium and establishing an institute for teaching which will deliver cutting-edge training and will target disadvantaged areas.
I turn now to broader support. We are committed to helping pupils recover and close the attainment gap. We have already announced nearly £5 billion for education recovery, with many programmes, including the 16 to 19 tuition fund and the recovery premium especially focused on helping the most disadvantaged. Schools will continue to receive recovery funding and the additional funding received by secondary schools will nearly double from September, reflecting evidence that shows greater learning loss for older pupils who have less time left in education. In broad terms, this means a typical secondary school receives over £60,000 this year, up from £30,000.
A number of your Lordships referred to the National Tutoring Programme and, if I may, I did not recognise the numbers, but it may be a timing issue that the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate cited. Since 2020, 2 million starts have already been made by pupils on the National Tutoring Programme courses, with the latest data suggesting that over 80% of schools in the north-east—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, referred to 56% but the most recent data shows 80%—participated in the programme, which was higher than in London and the south-east and the south-west. In response to the right reverend Prelate’s question, from academic year 2022-23, all funding for the National Tutoring Programme will go through the school-led approach.
We will also be targeting a greater proportion of the schools national funding formula towards deprived pupils. In 2022-23, 9.8% of the schools NFF will be allocated through deprivation factors.
This Government remain committed to improving outcomes for disadvantaged pupils of all abilities and across all regions. In partnership with schools in the region we have created a strong platform in primary to move the dial in secondary schools. Along with our focus on education investment areas, this will help to address the number of schools in the region which have been rated as requiring improvement more than once and will drive up outcomes. We know that there is more to do to build on our collective successes so far, and we will continue to ensure that our programmes and funding are delivering the help that is needed, now and in the future, including learning from what is working best and where we need to do more to support children to fulfil their potential and have the lives they aspire to.
Climate Change and Biodiversity: Food Security
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Boycott
To move that this House takes note of the impact of climate change and biodiversity loss on food security.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to introduce this debate today. It was topical when I first tabled it, and it is even more so now. I thank all noble Lords who have signed up to speak, and I especially welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, who will be making her maiden speech today. I am sure I join everyone in the House in welcoming her and being extremely grateful for her expertise, which is much needed now. I am also sure, like everyone else, we send our best wishes to the Royal Family.
The war in Ukraine has weaponised global food supply. In blockading ports and destroying infrastructure, Russia has severed the ties between acutely food insecure populations and the Ukrainian wheat and cooking oil on which they depend. The war is not the sole cause, but it has thrown fire on an already unstable situation which is being undermined across the world by climate change. The record-breaking 40-degree heatwave and prolonged drought in the UK—July 2022 was the driest July since 1911, and it has been the driest nine months since 1975—are stark reminders to us all, not least for the farmers and food producers in the UK. Retailers are rejecting vegetables because they are stunted due to a lack of water. Some 50% of the potato crop is not going to be up to much. They are being ploughed back into the soil—a quite horrific prospect as we face the most severe cost of living crisis in my lifetime. Livestock farmers are already using their winter silage or haylage due to a severe lack of grass. What is this going to mean for the winter months ahead? No one knows, because there is no plan.
This is not a problem for us alone. The shocks from climate change, such as drought and other extreme weather, and the associated biodiversity loss are not going anywhere. They are everywhere. Like us, China and Kenya are experiencing their worst droughts in living memory. Alarmingly, research by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine highlights that we import 32% of our fresh produce—the key to healthy diets—from countries that are most vulnerable to climate change.
But I now turn to the other part of the debate: biodiversity. All too often it is overlooked as part of the fight against climate change. But make no mistake: you will not get one without the other. Some 40 years ago, the world scoffed at James Lovelock’s understanding of the interconnectivity of life on earth—now, when it is almost too late, we are starting to understand just what a miracle it is.
A 2021 report gave a damning verdict on biodiversity in the UK: we are one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Institutionally, we are not just failing nature; we are actually hastening its demise. The Dasgupta review, published brilliantly by our Treasury in 2021, highlighted this in one shocking statistic: globally, we subsidise the destruction of nature to the tune of between $4 trillion and $6 trillion annually. In the UK, it is a minimum of $70 million. COP 15, taking place in Montreal later this year, will be a critical test of the world’s resolve and a chance to change that trajectory.
Back to the UK specifically, since the 1970s our food system, from farm to fork, has been the key driver in the decline of nature. A study by the Natural History Museum found that we have lost half of our biodiversity since the industrial revolution. At present, we know that over 40% of UK species are in decline and that one in 10 are threatened with extinction, and that 85% of our soils have been severely degraded. Changes in the way we farm—overusing chemicals, planting monocultures and removing habitat features, partly driven by our own implementation of subsidies—have been a leading contributor to this loss.
Biodiversity plays a central role in both tackling climate change and establishing a farming system that naturally provides pollination and pest predation, as well as soil fertility and carbon storage. We cannot tackle these two issues in isolation; we must see them as one challenge.
Solutions start with the food system. It can be tempting to see something as sprawling as the global food system as completely beyond the reach of Governments. Yet global food insecurity and our food insecurity are the product of policy decisions—they did not just happen. The virtual exclusion of agriculture from climate change policy has spared the sector from the pressure to transition to more sustainable practices. Just as Governments have favoured fossil fuels over renewables, so they have favoured large corporations that say they will deliver cheap food and economic growth. We need to reimagine this system, from what happens in the field to what we eat.
Research is helping us understand that embedding biodiversity into farming systems and increasing the carbon content of soil will improve yields. But how do we manage that soil and the land to feed people and nurture the planet? That is critical. As the national food strategy set out, 22% of land that produces food in the UK is used to produce crops to feed animals. This is massively inefficient.
On land use, I want to debunk something that has been doing the rounds. It has been said that solar farms are a threat to food production. This is emphatically not the case. Solar farms currently take up 0.1% of land in the UK. Even if that is rapidly scaled up, as the previous Government said they would, that would still rise to only 0.3%. In context, that is only 0.5% of all our farming land and about half the size of the land used for golf courses. In addition, solar farms can be biodiversity hotspots if they are not grazed. On this, as on many aspects, we can hit multiple birds with a single stone.
The ecosystems that we degrade through overuse should be helping to absorb carbon, regulating surface temperature and protecting against the destruction wrought by weather and extremes. Instead, we have relentlessly weakened nature’s resilience and limited the capacity of soil to deliver healthy harvests. Agro-ecological approaches have very encouraging outcomes. For instance, Hillesden Farm, a 1,000 acre farm in Buckinghamshire, has since 2005 increased biodiversity while never losing crop yields. As farmers manage 70% of the UK’s land area, and the need to tackle the climate and nature crisis is great, the Government must consider increasing the budget for farming from its current £3.2 billion a year. A land-use framework for not just farmland but all land is crucial, and the Government must not miss the opportunity they now have to act.
Let us turn to another part of the food system. We know that the agri-food supply chain on both an international and national level is concentrated within a handful of companies which hide behind opaqueness. The just-in-time model and the oligopolistic nature of our food system make it vulnerable and fragile to geopolitical and climate shocks. We must have shorter supply chains and local food systems that are built on diversity. The Sustain alliance carried out a significant piece of market research in 2021 which found that most farmers in England and Wales want to supply much more locally and regionally. However, there are very big barriers, from a lack of affordable finance to any investment in infrastructure such as abattoirs.
There is a massive opportunity for our Government to marry up the levelling-up agenda and the net-zero strategy to deliver more climate-friendly and resilient supply chains that create decent jobs and put some pride in place around farming and food. Can the Minister confirm whether he will push for this to happen?
On procurement, the public purse spends over £2 billion a year on catering. It is therefore one of the Government’s most direct tools to change what people eat, reduce the amount of cheap industrial meat and introduce more fruit, veg and pulses, but the standard of public sector food across the UK is really patchy. It is the Government’s job to set standards that all caterers are legally obliged to follow, so that they will serve nutritious meals that demonstrate and normalise healthy diets, rather than cheap junk food.
The Food for Life programme, run by the Soil Association, is proof that good food can be served on public sector budgets. I have seen this for myself over many years. It serves 2 million meals a day and is produced to higher environmental and welfare standards. The Government are currently consulting on introducing a target for 50% of local food, of which at least 20% should come from high production standards, as I have proposed in an amendment to the Procurement Bill.
On what we actually eat, changing how we farm will not be enough to break the vicious cycle of poor diets and environmental harm; only by radically lowering the demand for meat in high-income countries can we do that. Animal products are an important part of high-quality protein but they are a huge drain on global resources. Our overconsumption is costing us our planet as well as our health. One-third of all the grain grown in the world is destined for animal feeds, and if population and the demand for meat keep rising as is forecast, agricultural production will have to increase by 50% in the next 30 years. Clearly, that is quite impossible. As an aside, right now there are 80 billion animals living in cages or feed-lots to feed us—that is four for every single person. It is quite disgusting.
The Committee on Climate Change has repeatedly called for the UK to reduce meat and dairy by a fifth, while the Dimbleby-led national food strategy called for a 30% increase in fruit and veg. How do we get there? The time for being reticent on making policy interventions to shape how we eat must be over. We are not just facing a climate and nature emergency but a big public health one. Governments, policymakers and parliamentarians can no longer claim that this is a simple case of educating children better or asking them to exercise more. In England alone, 28% of adults are obese and 36.2% are overweight; the Covid pandemic has exacerbated that. This is a disgrace.
How have the Government responded to this new challenge? In April, they cut £100 million of funding to local authority weight management services and in May introduced a go-slow on their own obesity policies to restrict “buy one, get one free” on junk food and junk food marketing. I would be interested in hearing from the Minister an explanation of exactly how junk food adverts help citizens afford good food.
The problems of poor diets do not just lie at the feet of individuals, and not all meat and dairy has the same impact. The challenge for all of us—government, policymakers and businesses—is how, in the face of a rocketing cost of living, to guarantee that everyone has access to a healthy diet that does not cost the earth. According to the Food Foundation, there has been a 57% increase in food insecurity since January 2022, and we now have 17.2% of households with kids experiencing lack of food, which affects 2.6 million children. The poorest fifth of UK households would need to spend 47% of their disposable income just to meet the cost of the government-recommended healthy diet. Clearly, they cannot do it.
Here are some things that the Government could do: uprate benefits in line with inflation; increase Healthy Start; and have supermarkets, the top four of which announced pre-tax profits this year of £4 billion, top up the value of vouchers. Government could auto-enrol eligible children in free school meals. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that currently nearly 900,000 kids are missing out, and they have parents on universal credit. If we are to live in a green and pleasant land, all children going to school must receive a hot and healthy meal, in the same way that they receive a pencil and a ruler.
Can the Government think more creatively about shifting dietary habits? Are there ways that prices could be lowered on healthier foods? Given how resource-intensive and damaging intensive meat farming is, what could Governments, national and local, do to curb their spread? We need to study food insecurity in the round. We should at the very least have a special inquiry into this issue.
It is possible to get a better world, but changes must be fundamental. Farming lobbies are powerful, leaving politicians reluctant to shift from large-scale agriculture. while advising people what to eat is regarded as the nanny state. The result is that our tackling of the environmental harms of industrial agriculture is weak to pathetic. The worst health outcomes have been blamed on the individual, never the system. Food poverty and food insecurity is the result of being unable to cook or being a rotten household manager. We have done everything to prop up a system that is not only killing us—diet-related disease is now the number one cause of preventable death on the planet—but killing our wildlife and soil, and contributing massively to the climate change that is destroying the planet.
Finally, what are the Government for if they fail to look after their people and ensure that they are adequately fed, their children can grow into healthy adults and the soil, the country and the fields they inherited are not used just as an inexhaustible cupboard? This is no easy task for any Government, but I should really like the Minister to agree that just because something might be really difficult does not mean it is not worth doing.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for securing this debate and the amazing tour de force of her speech. Food security is a huge area, but she covered most of it and I shall not attempt to try to do the same. I am also glad to see my noble friend on the Front Bench; I hope he has a good deal of Araldite to keep him there a bit longer, because we need his experience and knowledge.
It is also a pleasure to welcome the recently published government food strategy. I should like to mention three aspects in particular: the commitments to maintain the current levels of domestic food production, which is very important; to a separate horticultural strategy; and—such good news to me—to develop a land-use strategy. At long last: we have been banging on about this for many years and have always had the thumbs down from Defra. At long last, the Government will produce a land-use strategy next year, and I look forward to it. However, I feel it is a bit of a cart before the horse, because the Government are half way through the ELMS programme, and we needed a land-use strategy before a policy for the land.
It is good to see the change in Defra’s approach, because the past decade has not been its finest. In the first part of the past decade, it flirted with sustainable intensification in agriculture. That followed Professor John Beddington’s Foresight report—many of your Lordships will remember it. No sooner had that gone cold and started to collect dust than the pendulum swung and Defra moved off in totally the opposite direction, on a rather nebulous path to sustainable agriculture. At long last, the pendulum is a little more central.
I fear that in the past few years, Defra has been too influenced by some NGOs and well-meaning environmentalists who have rather a picture postcard view of the country and what farming was about. Ideals were based on emotion rather than science and fact. I now want to concentrate on the importance of Defra making all its decisions on hard, provable science. Without that, we will not get the resilience and sustainability in our farming system that we so badly need, as just highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
Let me start with production levels. I go back to the 1960s, when I was working on farms before I went to agricultural college. If we had kept the same yields as we achieved then, we would have to farm 85% of global land surface, rather than the 35% we do at the moment. That is a huge credit to our farmers, not just in this country but throughout the world, who have increased their production to keep us fed as they have. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude, and we rely on them to keep us fed in future. Can my noble friend confirm that the strategy set out by Henry Dimbleby in his National Food Strategy will be followed by the Government: that is, to have high-yield farming, low-intensity farming and natural habitat? It is important that there are these three different parts.
Conservation scientist Andrew Balmford said:
“Most species fare much better if habitats are left intact, which means reducing the space needed for farming. So areas that are farmed need to be as productive as we can possibly make them.”
That will be anathema to some people, but it is absolutely vital because we must improve the biodiversity. Is it possible to farm in the way that Henry Dimbleby suggested? It is; we have been doing so for 30 years at least. The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, in its Allerton project, have been doing exactly this. It has increased the number of farmland birds, productivity and the areas of land subject to wildlife and to low-intensity farming. It can be done, and I hope the Government will use that as a template for the future of farming in this country. That was a question I posed to my noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble when he was a Minister; I am glad to see him in the House. He did not give me an answer then, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give me an answer today.
It was the late Harold Macmillan who allegedly said, “Events, dear boy, events”. The question of Ukraine and what it has done to farming was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, but it shows how resilient and adaptable we must be in the future, to adapt to all the new circumstances thrown at us.
My penultimate point is to ask my noble friend about the soil health action plan for England. Many of us were delighted when we got a commitment from my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park that there would be a soil health action plan. Alas, Defra seems to have gone to sleep on it. It was promised to me in a Written Answer in the spring. Well, spring is a long time away. I have followed that up with Written Questions but there has been obfuscation. I wonder whether we were accidentally misled by my noble friend, or whether there is a new policy in Defra. Can my noble friend tell me what the up-to-date situation is?
In conclusion—this is all related to science—I pay a particular welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. Being a scientist, she is exactly the sort of person we need in this House, to help us and guide us through our deliberations. Some of our hard—perhaps crusty is the wrong word—farming and environmentalist noble Lords are in the Chamber at the moment, and the noble Baroness will get to know us all pretty well in a short time.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for this timely debate, at a time of growing concern about rising food prices and increasing food shortages. I add my welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who comes with a significant reputation already. We know that she will make a major contribution to the environmental debates that we will be involved with. This debate is also timely because we have a new Prime Minister, a new BEIS Secretary of State, and a new Defra Secretary of State. We are all anxious to know what their plans are for the environment. I have to say that, so far, it is not looking good.
Of course, Liz Truss has been the Defra Secretary of State before, so I was keen to see what she made of it last time. I googled her record. In the two years that she held the post she never made one keynote speech and gave the impression that she could not wait to leave. What we do know is that in that period she cut the Environment Agency’s budget so much that it became unable to act against water polluters, a legacy that we are still living with today.
Today, she announced the opening of new oil and gas licence applications, and the lifting of the ban on fracking. She is also cutting the green levy, which was introduced to help energy companies fast-track to renewable energy growth. As a result, our progress towards delivering net zero by 2050 is in danger of going into reverse. Can the Minister please tell us whether the PM is still committed to the net-zero target? If so, what steps is she proposing to take to achieve it, given that we are already behind on the current targets and her emphasis on gas and fracking will make matters worse? Given that she has made great play of her plans to rip up remaining EU legislation, where does that leave the retained environmental legislation, such as the habitats and birds directives, which underpin our current biodiversity strategy?
One of the reasons there is so much uncertainty about the future is that Defra lacks a coherent plan to deliver its climate change and biodiversity strategies. The Committee on Climate Change and the Commons EFRA Committee have consistently criticised the department’s approach to this. As they have said, a long-term strategy is required to prepare the agriculture sector for the risks and opportunities that arise from climate change, including higher temperatures, drought and increases in the spread of pests and diseases.
We have seen the huge impacts that arise from extreme weather globally, in the devastating droughts and fires in Australia and the loss of life and homes in the recent Pakistani floods. Clearly, the droughts that we faced this summer are a portent of things to come. The result is lower yields of crops, livestock being fed winter feed as the dried-out grass cannot sustain them, and poor horticulture outputs. This is impacting the bottom line of farmers and growers at a time when fertiliser and energy costs are already making their businesses increasingly unviable. So I ask the Minister: where is the Defra plan to help farmers adapt to the challenges of climate change, so that they can play their full part in delivering net zero?
We already know that the water companies are failing to play their part. We clearly need a strategy to preserve the increasingly scarce and precious water supplies that exist. This means building more reservoirs for storage and fixing the leaks in existing pipework. Farmers and growers need to know what is expected of them from future water use.
A couple of years ago, I spent the day with Norfolk farmers, who are growing many of the fruit and vegetables that feed the nation. They had been told by the Environment Agency that their access to the local aquifer was about to be restricted, as it was running low. Their argument, which was well made, was that if they had been given longer notice of this change, they could have invested in their own water supply units. They simply did not have time to adapt, given the short notice they were given. These are the sorts of challenges that producers across the country are facing.
We know that much bigger changes in agricultural practices will be needed to meet our climate change obligations, including a switch away from livestock farming. This has the twin advantage of also improving the nation’s health. But where is the Defra plan to reduce our share of carbon emissions from agriculture? We are falling badly behind the necessary targets.
Meanwhile, as Minette Batters has said, proposals to help farmers increase food production have been stripped to the bone. We know that costs are rising dramatically for farmers and food producers, putting further pressure on food price inflation. The closure of the UK’s biggest fertiliser plant will add to costs, as will its impact on the supply of CO2. At the same time, tonnes of food are being left rotting in the field and over 40,000 pigs have been culled, simply because of labour shortages—a problem of the Government’s own making. Our farmers are increasingly being undercut by low-quality imports from abroad.
Where is the plan to support British farmers to increase local food production and ensure that British food is affordable? The Committee on Climate Change flagged up the possibility of a major switch to produce food more suitable to hot, dry climates, such as peaches, apricots, tea, sunflowers, sweet potatoes, watermelons, walnuts and, of course, wine. Is this the future the Government see for horticulture? There is huge popular support for the notion that we should become more self-sufficient in food production in the UK. The increasing food scarcities from war and drought will exacerbate that need, so why do the Government not aim to increase our home-grown production of vegetables beyond the current 54%? Why do we not incentivise planting more fruit trees as part of our tree planting strategy? At a local level, why do we not encourage communities and individuals to grow more of their own food in gardens and public spaces?
Last week, volunteers on my allotment picked six crates of apples and pears to give to FareShare. This is, in effect, free food, and we should replicate that model in communities wherever we can.
Of course, we did have a comprehensive food strategy that began to address these issues. The Dimbleby report set out a comprehensive road map that would have allowed us to fix the broken food system and provide more nutritious and accessible food for the nation. Sadly, as we have debated before, the Government’s response was late and totally inadequate.
The truth is that the Government have failed to deliver a food strategy, are failing on our climate change commitments and are failing farmers. I suspect that they will be punished—rightly—by rural communities at the next election. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, but I doubt there is much he can do to stop that inevitability.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour to address this House for the first time. I start by thanking all the staff in the Chamber of your Lordships’ House, as well as my fellow Peers, for the very warm and helpful welcome that I have received. I also commend the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for securing this debate.
I started my academic life as a palaeoecologist, which is one of those terms that makes people look very puzzled when I mention it. For the benefit of the Convenor and others who might not know, this is the study of fossil pollen, plant macrofossils and leaves contained in lake sediments over thousands of years, which you can then use to reconstruct vegetational responses to external perturbations such as climate change. This is particularly important for larger organisms, including one of our most important, our trees. If you think about it, the average generation time of most trees is 50 years. You need these longer-term records to understand how trees will respond.
This research was looking predominantly at dead plant parts, but this all changed when I went on secondment to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew for five years as its first director of science. Suddenly I was surrounded by this incredible biodiversity of plants. In fact, in a single lunchtime I could see the world in plants. When at Kew, I was responsible for around 360 scientists. Many people do not realise how many scientists there are at Kew. I was also responsible for the incredible collections in the Millennium Seed Bank, the Herbarium and the Fungarium. Since returning to Oxford from Kew, I have held a professorship in biodiversity in the department of biology, and I am also head of one of the oldest colleges in Oxford, St Edmund Hall.
Today’s debate—
“that this House takes note of the impact of climate change and bio-diversity loss on food security”—
therefore links very closely to my current and past roles. In terms of understanding the scale of biodiversity loss, some of the most startling evidence I have ever come across as an academic was when I co-led a team of scientists from all over the world to assess biodiversity trends in the last 50 years. This was as part of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. We examined thousands of records. It was incredibly depressing, because plants, animals, fungi, species, communities and genetic diversity have all declined significantly in the last 50 years. Two main drivers emerged from this biodiversity loss: land-use change and climate change.
But why should we be concerned about the impact of global biodiversity loss on food security? Often when we look at global biodiversity, we think about David Attenborough programmes and beautiful landscapes, but there is actually something much more critical here, which is its impact overall on food security. This is why: of the nearly 420,000 vascular plant species that we know about on the earth to date, just nine supply over 75% of our plant-derived calories in human diets, with wheat, rice and corn alone providing almost half of the world’s calorie intake.
These crops have been selected for decades, if not hundreds of years, for the high yields that we heard about earlier. This has resulted in high yields and the very good-tasting food that we want to eat, to buy and to feed ourselves and livestock, but as a result we have less and less genetic diversity and smaller and smaller species numbers. The loss of that genetic diversity means that in these crops we have lost our resilience to climate change.
A lot of modelling is going on, and it indicates alarmingly that with global warming of even 2 degrees Celsius, there will be a 20% to 40% reduction in cereal grain production, particularly in Asia and Africa but also in the UK. So we urgently need to restore the genetic diversity of our crops or find alternative, more climate-resilient crops, and this is where there is a critical link back to biodiversity.
Work by scientists at Kew and other institutions, notably the Crop Trust, have identified around 320 species of wild relatives of crops and more than 7,000 wild and semi-domesticated plants used by societies all over the world that are not in major production. The vast majority of these crop wild relatives and underutilised plants grow in much more extreme climates than their highly domesticated versions and, crucially, have genes that allow them to do so. They are effectively climate-resilient. We need to breed that kind of resilience back into our crops. This work is already going on. Some notable institutions, including the John Innes Centre in East Anglia, are breeding climate-resilient crops from the crop wild relatives. The species being looked at are rice, durum wheat, legumes and potatoes.
In line with United Nations sustainable development goal 2, we need to be conserving these crop wild relatives and underutilised crops, yet this is where the problem comes in. These wild relatives of crops and underutilised plants grow in the same biodiverse landscapes where we are seeing the most dramatic declines. Biodiversity loss, including of these crop wild relatives and underutilised crops, is removing in many ways our get-out-of-jail card when it comes to creating create climate-resilient crops, and we should be deeply concerned by that.
However, it is not just the impact of climate change and biodiversity above ground that we need to worry about—we have already heard some of this—it is also about the impact below ground and, in particular, the mycorrhizal fungi that are attached to 80% of terrestrial plants across the world. It is a symbiotic relationship, which means that the fungi get food from the plant and in exchange there is a network across the soil that greatly enhances the uptake of nutrients and minerals and water retention by those plants. Many plants, and many of our economic crops, have very specific mycorrhizal assemblages associated with them.
Application of mycorrhizal fungi to crops has already shown that it can increase grain yields by 16% in crops such as corn, rice, sorghum and wheat. There is now clear scientific evidence to show that this is one of the ways forward to get climate-resilient crops. However, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, temperature and pH significantly alter the composition of fungi in the soil and affect their ability to function, so I would go as far as to say that the hidden impact below the ground of climate change and biodiversity loss might be even more significant than the impact above ground. Without the right fungi in the soils, some crops will simply not grow.
To conclude, the combination of climate change and biodiversity loss poses an extremely serious risk to global food security and, in particular, to our ability to grow high-yielding, climate-smart crops. I therefore strongly commend this Motion and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for bringing this critically important topic to the attention of your Lordships’ House.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, what a pleasure to rise to congratulate the noble Baroness on her maiden speech, which I do on behalf of everyone present here today. She put a powerful and persuasive argument utilising all the expertise she could bring to bear. You would never know that the noble Baroness has been a Member of this House for such a short time. The House will recall that she took her seat on the last day before the Summer Recess, and here she is making her maiden speech four sitting days later. I do not know what the record is for the gap between being introduced and making a maiden speech—I dare say some Minister holds the record—but nevertheless for a Cross-Bencher it is a very distinguished way to start.
The research to which the noble Baroness modestly alluded, whether conducted at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge or Bergen, or at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, is an example of how important it is that the House of Lords Appointments Commission can produce for this House people of the noble Baroness’s calibre. We are due tomorrow—though I understand a statement is to be made at 6 pm tonight—to discuss the Appointments Commission, but we will see. In the meantime, I congratulate the Cross Benches on the arrival of their latest Member. I hope she will not mind if I say this, but I have found since my relatively recent arrival that it is the almost intolerable good will of this House that is sometimes difficult to bear. I hope that I have conveyed just a hint of it in welcoming her speech today. The trouble is that I now have to make some remarks of my own.
I begin, like others, by saying that we all owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for introducing the debate in the way in which she did. You cannot imagine a more important debate than one on the future of the planet earth and our ability to feed ourselves. It is very timely, and I compliment the noble Baroness on the way she introduced it.
In my short contribution, I want to mention some of the risks of biodiversity loss, because biodiversity loss and climate change are two sides of the same coin. Biodiversity is a term we use to describe the variety and variability of life on the planet, from the biggest mammals to microscopic single-cell organisms. The diversity of life and the interactions between organisms are what create the natural ecosystems that in turn regulate the environment and make the earth habitable.
As the House will know, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, among many others, has drawn attention to the fact that biodiversity loss is accelerating by stating:
“Despite increasing recognition of the crucial role of biodiversity in maintaining human and planetary health, biodiversity is declining faster than at any time in human history, and perhaps as fast as during any mass extinction”.
That is a serious warning we need to take seriously.
I heard the other day that it is thought that by 2035 the National Health Service will be spending more money on the complications arising from type 2 diabetes than on cancer. That is a result, in part, of what might be called the “junk food culture” of the western world, because we are not necessarily eating the best or most healthy food. When it comes to mind-blowing statistics, I understand that the world is going to need to produce in the next 40 years more food than it has produced in its entire human history—which shows the scale of the challenge we face.
As the noble Baroness correctly pointed out, I think about two-thirds of the world’s plant-based food comes from just nine species of crop. The House really needs to know how vulnerable we are when we read a statistic like that, and the noble Baroness speaks with much greater authority than I do. The noble Baroness also referred to the resilience of plants, which is going to be crucial to our survival. Converting land to agriculture does not just destroy natural ecosystems such as prairies, grasslands and forests. It also deprives wildlife of the food sources and shelter that it depends upon to survive.
Beyond the destruction of ecosystems, the intensification of farming is also driving biodiversity loss. I think it is estimated that about 100,000 species of insects, as well as birds and mammals, pollinate more than two-thirds of the food plants that are responsible for about one-third of the world’s crop production. I am only in many ways repeating in a pale form some of the points made by the noble Baroness. The variability and availability of living organisms are essential to agriculture as they ensure that the natural processes can take place, contributing to important functions such as soil fertility.
There are one or two things that are going wrong, and I will briefly draw attention to them. Land use, which has been mentioned, is a major driver of biodiversity loss and many agricultural practices are unsustainable in the long term. I suppose the deforestation of the Amazon is the most obvious example.
Then there is corn. We have been growing corn for 9,000 years but, as demand for it has soared, one of the most worrying aspects is the loss of diversity within the crop itself. Studies have pointed to a troubling erosion of genetic diversity within corn crops that could impact the crop’s ability to be sustained and grown in future.
In the last 40 years there has been a reduction of about one-third in all insect pollinator species where they have been measured, while biodiversity loss in marine fisheries is likely to continue and global heating can threaten that recovery completely as the oceans warm and become increasingly acidified. That matters because about 3 billion people on the planet rely on fish for a whole host of their food intake. In light of the time, I shall close by saying that biodiversity loss is as great a threat to the world as the phasing out of fossil fuels.
Perhaps I could conclude with a word of hope. I think I am right in saying, although I am sure I will be corrected if not, that there has been some fascinating scientific research that hints at breakthroughs in the productivity of plants and the possibility of significant increases in, for example, the yields of soya plants that could make a big difference in a world with a growing population and significantly amounts of farmland lost to climate change.
I hope the Minister might say a word about the current COP 15 process in relation to biodiversity and when we might expect a White Paper from the Government in response to the recommendations of the national food strategy, as referred to by my noble friend among others. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in his reply, and I end by congratulating once again the new expert Member of the Cross Benches on biodiversity, the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I begin by adding my own compliments to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, on what was a most excellent maiden speech. I am very much looking forward now to her deep scientific learning informing many future contributions. We need good science in this House. I also echo the sentiments of my right reverend friend the Bishop of Durham in the previous debate, assuring your Lordships that Her Majesty is very much in the prayers of the Lords Spiritual at this time.
I am deeply grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for securing time for us to discuss the important matters in this debate. I draw attention to my interest as set out in the register as a Church Commissioner; we are one of the largest owners of agricultural land in England.
This year we have seen unprecedented consequences of climate change, both at home in the UK and abroad: record temperatures, shifting weather patterns, rising sea levels and biodiversity loss. Climate change is alive and kicking, and we need to work together at all levels, locally, nationally and internationally, to address the crisis.
I am glad to be able to commend actions taken by the Government to address food security here in the UK. The Government’s food strategy that was published in June was a clear step in the right direction. However, much more still needs to be done to address food security across the country. Like others, I urge the Government to pay attention to the Dimbleby review, particularly its recommendations to pass new legislation to protect our food security and the environment.
As the cost of living crisis and energy bill increases bite—I do not know what the Prime Minister planned to announce today—we must ensure that we are doing all we can to guarantee food security for all. Almost all the churches in my diocese have a food bank that they are supporting. But there other things that we can do: we can invest in the transition to sustainable farming and fisheries, and we must strengthen local food systems and reduce both UK meat consumption, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, urged, and food waste.
I want to speak mostly beyond the UK. We need to look over the horizon to the need for global food security. The United Nations has estimated that 50 million people in 45 countries are living
“each day on the edge of famine”.
Indeed, speaking at the Global Food Security Call to Action ministerial in May this year, UN Secretary-General António Guterres spoke of climate change’s impacts on global hunger, saying:
“Over the past decade, 1.7 billion people have been affected by extreme weather and climate-related disasters.”
As noble Lords have discussed, the impacts of climate change on food security are only going to worsen. The IPCC has said that an increase in global warming of 1.5 to 2 degrees centigrade would increase pressure on food production and access. Beyond 2 degrees, it would lead to severe food insecurity across certain regions, particularly in Africa, Asia and the Americas. Global warming beyond 3 degrees would significantly expand the areas impacted by severe food insecurity. As we have heard, these changes compound biodiversity loss, which in turn compounds food insecurity—this is a vicious spiral.
Two days ago, I returned from a trip to Namibia. I have been visiting churches and communities in that diocese because we in the diocese of Manchester have the pleasure of being twinned with it. The majority of Namibia’s population depend, directly or indirectly, on the agricultural sector. It is estimated that the mean annual temperature will go up by 2.7 degrees in the next few years and that annual precipitation will decrease by 7%. This is likely to cause longer droughts, increased heatwaves and greater flooding, and implications for the agriculture sector in the country are obvious—food production is already being destabilised.
Namibia is a semi-arid country; the soil in many places is almost like the sand on a beach. It is highly dependent on grazing animals that can survive through the long dry season on its marginal grasslands. Namibia is probably one of the few countries where I would struggle to maintain my meat-free diet. Sadly, poor rains in the last few years have increased the numbers of people who have lost their cattle. Many have been forced to migrate, particularly from the rural north to the capital, Windhoek. This has created huge pressure on services in the city, led to increased numbers of people living in wholly unacceptable conditions—these have to be seen, heard and smelled—and raised the number of people, especially young men, who lack meaningful employment. Elsewhere, as noble Lords are well aware, such factors have been observed to put social harmony and cohesion at risk.
My diocese is also twinned with the diocese of Lahore in Pakistan, and it has been heart-wrenching to see and hear of the devastating impacts of climate change there. Noble Lords will have seen that more than 33 million people have been displaced from their homes by the recent floods, which cover more than one-third of the country. Huge swathes of farmland, crops and stockpiles have been destroyed, while supplies of rice, vegetables and wheat have been severely disrupted.
These are just two countries—two I happen to know well—among many whose food security is already being negatively impacted by a climate crisis for which they are not primarily responsible. I hope that, in this debate, the Minister will be able to assure us that Her Majesty’s Government will use all their influence and powers, not least to uphold the pledges made at the COP 26 summit to address the challenges of adaptation, loss and damage. It is essential that we all take responsibility, not just individually but collectively, for our part in climate change and biodiversity loss, and that we act to stop them now to ensure a more food-secure future for us all. Let this debate be a significant step in that direction.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for securing this important debate. I add my welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, and congratulate her on her excellent and highly informative maiden speech.
There is no greater illustration of the impact of climate change on lives, livelihoods and, inevitably, biodiversity and food security than the calamitous events that have unfolded in Pakistan in recent days. I will use the time allocated to me to focus my remarks mostly on that country. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, an area the size of the United Kingdom has been flooded due to torrential monsoon rains even more forceful than the norm, following the soaring temperatures this year, and due to the melting glaciers in the north of the country. The impact of these floods on those directly affected and on the country as a whole cannot be adequately expressed.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the statistics: more than 1,900 people have been killed, more than a million homes have been damaged or demolished, 10,000 schools have been lost, 900 health facilities were wrecked, and more than 3,000 kilometres of road and over 100 bridges were destroyed. There is the additional destruction of huge tracts of farmland, with roughly 2.2 million hectares of crops ruined and 800,000 livestock swept away. The estimated total loss to the economy is $30 billion. Rice, cotton and sugarcane —both in the fields and in stores—were destroyed, and 1.7 million fruit trees were ravaged. It is an apocalyptic scene, the kind that might be imagined in a disaster movie. Sadly, however, this is reality and a sign of things to come for our planet.
Pakistan is just one of a number of countries on the front line of climate change, while also being one of the countries which contributes least to pollution. The challenges the country faces on food security are beyond measure. Wheat planting in the month of October is now under threat, and the shortage of around 2.6 million tonnes, even before the floods, will be further compounded. Vegetables, such as onions and tomatoes which are a staple in that country, are in some areas completely wiped out. Prices for these foods prior to the floods had soared due to inflation, but they are now unaffordable for many.
The Government of Pakistan have warned that there is a food security crisis looming. The UN Resident Coordinator and Humanitarian Coordinator for Pakistan has described the emergency as a “climate-change driven catastrophe”. With Pakistan the fifth largest exporter of rice—exporting around 4 million tonnes—the loss of crops will have an impact on availability and prices elsewhere.
In 1989, the former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher warned in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly on global environment that:
“Of all the challenges faced by the world community … one has grown clearer than any other in both urgency and importance … the threat to our global environment”.
That was 33 years ago, but we are nowhere near meeting the challenge or putting in place adequate defences to mitigate the impact of climate change. The climate finance target of $100 billion by 2020 promised by the wealthier countries, as a recognition of their responsibility for historic carbon emissions, to lower-income countries to deal with the impacts of climate change has never been reached.
With other vulnerable countries on the front line of what has been pointed out by experts as an exponential growth in climate change, it is fair to say that these events will happen more and more frequently and with equally devastating consequences. Bolstering the resilience of countries most immediately vulnerable to climate change should be paramount. I know that this is not the responsibility of Defra, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give some assurance that Her Majesty’s Government would offer a commitment in this regard, because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, pointed out, everything is interconnected.
In Pakistan, the devastation of food crops due to flooding is starkly visible, but the full impact and the loss of biodiversity will become apparent in due course. When vegetables and crops are replanted, once the waters have subsided and the conditions will allow, there is a danger that the pollinators will no longer be there. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services has argued that
“biodiversity loss would leave agricultural systems more vulnerable to threats such as pests, pathogens and climate change”,
and that it would lead
“to an increased risk of crop failure”.
The current devastation will be tragically further compounded by disease and malnutrition.
Here in the UK, heavy rainfall and flooding in some areas in England have caused sewage overflows into rivers and around the coast. We have also experienced unusually high temperatures this year, with the Environment Agency declaring droughts in parts of the south-west, southern and central England, and the east of England. As a result, it is estimated that food yields may be lower. If local food supplies continue to decline due to the impact of climate change, then imports of cheaper or lower-quality, highly processed foods that have little nutritional value would have a detrimental impact on health and further exacerbate the stresses on our healthcare system.
What has happened in Pakistan is of proportions that are unimaginable. It can seem that such events are very far away, but the threat is accelerating and will reach us sooner than we imagine. The hope remains that technological advances and human innovation will save the day, but the emergency is real and immediate and requires urgent action and co-operation at every level and among all nations.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of the Woodland Trust, as a commissioner at the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission, and as vice-president of a range of environmental and conservation charities. I commend and welcome the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis; it is really great to have another biodiversity freak on board. I very much endorse the statements made about the powerful contributions that excellent scientists have made in this Chamber—it is great to have the noble Baroness here.
Climate change, biodiversity and food security are totally and deeply interdependent, both globally and nationally. The Armageddon in Pakistan described by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, is absolutely an example of that, and we will increasingly see other examples. Climate change, biodiversity decline, and food and survival catastrophes for people across the world will become more and more frequent.
Right now in the UK, apart from any of the international actions that we can take, we need to ensure that policies are in place that focus on the environment and climate change impact not only of our food production but on our food production. Both are equally important. The current international tensions make it even more important that we address issues of food security in this country. The UK will never be self-sufficient in food production until we learn how to grow pineapples in Kent—that may yet come, of course—but there are some commodity groups where we could produce more of our own food. We are currently only 16% self-sufficient in fruit, 54% in fresh veg and 71% in potatoes, so we could do more. I raise this issue of self-sufficiency in these commodities simply to indicate how that in itself raises a challenge. Expanding potato production, for example, would need more land and water, and potatoes are notoriously hard on soils.
That takes me to the key point on which I want to focus. There are many in the Chamber today who will have guessed that I want to bang on about land use. There are many competing demands for land in this country: agriculture and food production; biodiversity; carbon sequestration; generation of energy; timber production; water protection; development; housing; infrastructure; and land that people can access close to where they live and gain the health and spiritual benefits that those services provide. There are more land needs and pressures than, at the moment, it would seem we have land for. The Cambridge Conservation Initiative has calculated that, if we were simply to use land in the way that we do currently, we would need a third more land than we have. The risk is that we consider all these land-use needs as being in competition and that we continue to make decisions about them in silos.
As I said, many noble Lords will have heard me banging on for years about the need for a land use framework for England, which would provide support for decision-makers at all levels in breaking down the silos of decisions about land use. I simply say that Scotland is on its third land-use strategy. I know that our new Prime Minister does not think a lot of the First Minister of Scotland, but she may have got it slightly more right on this occasion in having a third land-use strategy. It brings into one policy framework the land aspects of a whole range of issues: food production, biodiversity, climate, economic development and social justice. We are not making any more land. I thought it was really fascinating that we have lost sight of the theme of the post-war settlement in this country—of the three capitals: of labour, capital and land. We have lost sight of the fact that scarce land is as important a national asset as capital and labour. I commend that thought to the Treasury and the new Chancellor.
As has been said, the Government recently agreed, in their response to the Dimbleby food strategy, that England needs a land-use framework—hurrah—but we appear to have rather a different Government today, so I ask the Minister to reassure the House that the Government are still committed to developing and launching a land-use framework by 2023. I urge him to widen the perspective of the strategy to cover not just the narrow range of Defra issues of carbon biodiversity and food production, but also the whole range of land-use pressures, especially infrastructure, housing, the built environment and energy generation. In particular, the framework needs to be completely seamless with whatever changes to the planning system the Government are working on. I also press him to give us an indication of the Government’s current intentions on planning reforms, because at the moment they have kind of gone into a hole.
Some other wider government policy currently seems a bit confused as well. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, the solar panels versus food security argument is unreal, although I do not think the new Prime Minister has yet twigged that. If the Government were to tackle, systematically and urgently, a major programme of energy efficiency and retrofitting in all domestic and commercial properties, and if they were to restore their own zero-carbon new homes policy that was cancelled in a rather cavalier fashion by George Osborne in 2015—if these two things were done—we would need less energy and we would not need solar panels on farmland, because solar power would be generated intrinsically on buildings.
The biodiversity versus food security and carbon action versus food security dichotomies are also unreal. Modelling commissioned by the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission shows that multifunctional land use, where the same land delivers for a range of purposes, means that we can have enough land for all our needs and one land use need not be at the expense of another. Many of the decisions about the best multifunctional land use are made, in reality, at local level by myriad land managers. Whatever framework the Government develop needs to be able to inform decision-making processes below national level, at regional and local level, involving land managers and landowners of all kinds.
Let the science speak: when the land is used effectively in a multifunctional way, we can see a wholly revitalised landscape that is rich in both food and nature and combats climate change. This is about being smarter with the finite land we have. At the risk of a pun, we need to be able to have our land and eat it. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell me whether he is still committed to a land-use framework that will be broader than just the Defra issues and how the planning reforms are going.
Before I finish, at this tense time for the country in a whole variety of ways, I commend the Queen’s Green Canopy initiative, which Her Majesty has hugely supported and has very graciously allowed the Woodland Trust to be involved in. Her Majesty knows about these things.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for securing this debate, and add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, on her excellent maiden speech. I look forward to hearing more in the future.
As Peers will know, I am something of a climate change obsessive, but I tend to focus mostly on energy. However, I have become much more interested in agriculture, food and land use and how it relates to climate, because it is a fascinating area. It is one of those aspects of life that we tend to take for granted, but the way we manage our land will be severely affected by climate change. It is also a source of that change to our climate and, unlike energy, which—although let us see what happens—is largely a privatised system, with the Government providing guardrails to companies to make decisions on how we produce our energy, there is huge involvement of the public purse in agriculture. We have a very large subsidy that passes from the public purse—the Treasury—to the guardians of our land every year.
It has been really curious watching this evolution of policy, with Brexit coming into force and Michael Gove uttering the immortal words that we will pay only
“public money for public goods”
before departing the scene, leaving us slightly unclear as to what he actually meant by that, and what the detail will be in terms of knowing what we will be paying for in the future. I have a question for the Minister: can we press ahead with providing clarity for the guardians of our land and our agricultural stewards so that they can plan for the future?
It strikes me that farmers are a very isolated breed in general. They obviously have ways in which they communicate among themselves but, by and large, they are being guided by people in whose interests it is to keep them purchasing fertilisers, seeds and chemicals. The people who visit the farm regularly have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. I am not saying that this is true of all farming, but there is a need to think about whether this is right—whether we are providing farmers with the right information for them or the right information for those who benefit from this highly industrialised form of agriculture that has become a norm. I wonder whether there is more of a role for government to create an educational service for farmers to help them understand what they are likely to be facing—a destabilised climate in this country—and how they can expect things to change around them. They are witnessing it themselves but they may not be thinking 20 years hence, when we know that this is just the beginning of the impacts we are likely to see.
Coupled to that, can we be clearer about the payments that we will make to the guardians of our land to provide us with public goods? It strikes me that this subsidy is very good value for money, because we get a whole host of services from our land that are not accounted for or paid for directly. We could say to farmers that this is the minimum level of public money they can expect because of the stewardship role that they provide, and that we would increase it further if they could get to a point where they were helping not only to mitigate their own impact on climate change but acting as an active carbon sink. This would allow other sectors to continue to emit because farming and land use, and our land-use strategies, would deliver over and above, and we would become much more carbon-rich and store more carbon in our land than we currently do.
That is not easy, but it is not impossible. I looked at the greenhouse gas inventory: at the moment agriculture contributes around 5.5 million tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere, from agricultural tractors, transport uses and direct use of energy. Overall, however, our land-use area is a natural sink of around 3 million tonnes at the moment. We are not far from parity in terms of CO2 emissions. Of course, that picture changes completely when we factor in other greenhouse gases, for which agriculture is largely responsible. Around 25 million tonnes of methane are emitted from the land-use sector into the atmosphere every year, and around 15 million tonnes of nitrous oxide. We have a long way to go to get this sector into a carbon-neutral position so that we can be ready for our net-zero targets.
We have a rather large amount of money available to us that we have been paying out for years and years in agricultural subsidies. It could be repurposed to deliver this increased carbon sink and will, I am sure, deliver increased biodiversity. To get there, we will have to embrace science and I endorse the words of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness: we have to allow modern technology and approaches into our agricultural system to allow us to spare the land. and let nature take a greater role in other parts of the land. We can do that only if we have a land-use strategy and framework that enables us to see where the use of science will be appropriate to increase yields, and where we can afford to allow land to return to a less productive state and deliver more social and environmental benefits.
I have come back from a summer holiday in the Brecon Beacons; it is a beautiful part of the world and I highly recommend it. There are about a million sheep there, however, and I was talking to local ecologists who said the carrying capacity of the area is probably about 100,000—nowhere near a million. We are by a factor of 10 overgrazing this part of the world, which is an incredibly important eco-system with all sorts of benefits. We have to find a way to help farmers move to a position where they are, yes, still farming the land and providing us with the things that society requires, but not encouraging them to keep with livestock that creates methane and is damaging our biodiversity, while probably exacerbating flooding and changing the way the landscape appears aesthetically.
There must be a way of doing this. We have the money and the intention, but we do not seem to have the plan. We need to open up a way of getting farmers to think creatively about how they can contribute. It could be done by setting aside a portion of the money into an auction, so that we pay people to deliver the outcomes we seek. I know some trials have taken place under the ELMS reforms, but that is an established way of helping people to find the best and least-cost solutions to reducing greenhouse gases. I am sure we have the capacity to do that; our carbon markets and carbon financing expertise in the UK are second to none. If we can harness them and help to unleash the creativity that I know is out there in our country, then we stand a chance of having agriculture neutralise its own emissions but then contribute to the reaching of net zero across the economy.
Although I am, in general terms, quite depressed and rather scared about where we are on climate, I think the UK is uniquely positioned. There is huge potential to lead the world in showing that this sector can not only reach a sustainable future for itself but assist us in solving climate change more generally. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and I thank my colleague and noble friend Lady Boycott, who I know will continue to champion these causes in this House. Thank you.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in sending our best wishes and prayers to Her Majesty the Queen and the Royal Family.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on securing this debate and on her very powerful introduction. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her maiden speech, and what an excellent maiden speech it was. I am not sure it was only the Lord Convener who needed her previous title to be explained, but thank you for that. The noble Baroness’s expertise will be hugely appreciated in this House.
I want to focus on the impact on developing countries, and I declare my interest as co-chair of APPGs on Africa, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Some 38 years ago, aged 14, I sat down and watched the famous broadcast by Michael Buerk from northern Ethiopia which brought the world’s attention to the catastrophe that was going on in that region. As many noble Lords know, that inspired many people; it created Band Aid and Live Aid, and a whole movement to try to change things.
As a precocious 14 year-old, at the time of EU intervention in stocks and the grain mountains, butter mountains and wine lakes, I felt, along with many others, the outrage that people were starving in parts of Africa when we were awash with plenty. Perhaps unlike most other 14 year-olds, I decided that I was the only person who could solve this, and for complicated reasons—I will not go into them now; I do not have the time—I ran away from home to Ethiopia. I arrived in Addis Ababa, and I quickly discovered, as your Lordships may not be surprised to hear, that the demand for totally unskilled 14-year-old English kids was zero, and that Ethiopia at that time, under a Marxist military dictatorship, was a pretty scary place to be.
Thankfully, I was rescued from that situation by an Anglican clergyman. He gave me some very good advice: first, to go home, although he was kind enough to let me stay there for a little while. He also told me, “Do not lose interest in these issues, because they will be ongoing, but go and get yourself some skills”. I took his advice and subsequently worked as a teacher in Zimbabwe, and in the first democratic Parliament in South Africa.
One of the tragedies is that, today, we are again facing a perilous situation in Ethiopia and the Horn, which is driven by climate factors but exacerbated by conflict. Large parts of the world are facing acute food insecurity. The World Food Programme tells us that it is delivering more food aid at present than it has in the whole of its 60-year history. A study published earlier this year in the Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism on tackling protein-calorie malnutrition during world crises highlights the fact that 54% of children are malnourished, while 1.9 billion people are overweight or obese. The statistics around malnutrition show that 462 million people are underweight. In the most vulnerable population, that of children under five, 45 million are wasted and 149 million stunted. We know that that point in life, between ages one and five in particular, is crucial to the future life chances of those children and the all impacts this has on future economic development in those societies.
The acute crisis in food security, driven by climate and biodiversity loss but exacerbated by the Covid pandemic and Russian aggression against Ukraine, is creating a terrifying situation in the world. I was in Sudan a couple of months ago, and the fear of what is coming is palpable. I spoke to the new South African high commissioner in London yesterday, and the impact that the situation is having on household budgets here is of course terrifying, but in places with much more vulnerable populations and economies, it is absolutely terrifying. We have sadly chosen this time to cut our aid budget massively, slashing the nutrition budget by 80%. That is a tragedy to me, because one thing I learned when I was in Ethiopia is that however precocious or determined you are, you cannot change the world on your own. But you can change it if you stand with other people and campaign with them.
One of the things I did when I came back from Ethiopia was to get involved with many other people—across all parties and none, from the faith communities, et cetera—in arguing for us to play our part in sharing some of our wealth with other parts of the world. I was delighted that, during the coalition Government, we reached that 0.7% target. We did much good, not just with the money but with the expertise that DfID developed in issues such as nutrition and food security. Sadly, we are losing that, and that is a tragedy.
It sometimes seems like we have just noticed climate change, because we had temperatures of 43 degrees and there were wildfires in California, and realised that something is happening to the climate. Something has been happening to the climate for a long time. Talk to people in the climate-vulnerable countries—Zimbabwe is one of the most climate-vulnerable countries on earth—which have suffered over many years some devastating impacts, such as waters drying up. Rivers in the rural area where I used to teach were no longer functioning. There was also a terrible cyclone in east of the country driven by climate change. This is not something new; it is something that has been happening for a while and we have to get a grip on it.
We have had much focus on climate, rightly, but it is very important that we also focus on biodiversity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others have said, they are intrinsically linked and we cannot tackle one without the other. Indeed, all three issues are intrinsically linked.
The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, made an important point, which I hope I have got right: nine out of 400 vascular plants are responsible for the majority of the staple foods that we rely on and, in the face of climate change and the need to build resilience, we have to develop the genetic diversity of crops. It is critical.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, made a very powerful point about the situation in Pakistan, where flooding has been going on since August, if not before, and noted its impacts on people and food security.
We face many challenges. What can we do? The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, gave us some hope about approaches to farming which can help deliver food security and restore biodiversity. There are many initiatives. The Food and Land Use Coalition has put out a 10-point transition plan about how we need to deal with these things holistically. The most important thing we have to do is act on the things we know how to do. The Climate Change Committee has told us many of the things we need to do in the UK and we know many of the things we have to do in the world.
We also all know that story about the frog which, if put in a pan of cold water that is heated up to boiling point, allegedly will not jump out. We probably also know that frogs are not that stupid and they will jump out. However, that story still appears to be true; it is just that it is about humans. We have been watching what has been going on with the climate and biodiversity and we have just sat in the pan and let it get hotter and hotter. We have to jump out now and start to act seriously, in line with the crisis that we face.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, Her Majesty the Queen and her family are very much in our thoughts at the moment. I am sure that across the House we are all deeply concerned.
This is an important debate. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on bringing it to the House and on her comprehensive introduction, which was often quite sobering. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, on her maiden speech, which was excellent. There are few maiden speeches that I have learned quite so much from. It was very interesting and I look forward to her future contributions in the House.
On the debate, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has warned that global loss of biodiversity is threatening the security of the world’s food supplies and the livelihoods of millions of people. Land use changes, pollution, overexploitation of resources and climate change were listed as the biggest drivers of this biodiversity loss. My noble friend Lord Stansgate said that biodiversity loss and climate change were two sides of the same coin, and I absolutely agree with him.
Agriculture and its related industries depend hugely on the climate. Crop production and livestock are the largest global food industries and are highly sensitive to climate change. Increases in temperature, changes in precipitation patterns and changes in storm frequency and severity all can significantly affect food production, and we have also heard about the added impact of the war in Ukraine. So it is clear that, in response to these huge challenges, agricultural production and how we manage our food security have to change.
Over the past 20 years, most countries have industrialised their animal agriculture practices, and there is an increasing amount of trade in animal products globally. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, talked about the impact of industrialisation. Yet, insufficient steps are being taken to address this issue and curb practices which drive greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation and biodiversity loss. Farm animal waste and other aspects of the animal agriculture sector generate greenhouse gas emissions, as we have heard during this debate. The national food strategy considered the impact of animal agriculture, so I ask the Minister whether the Government have looked at how to address this further.
The IPCC has stated that climate change is already directly affecting food security and nutrition, which it defines as
“when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.”
We need to look at how we can make sure that we provide this, not just for people in our country but right across the globe.
The RSPB says that the role that agriculture, land use change, pollution, unsustainable fishing practices, climate change and development have played in the significant loss of biodiversity in the UK is now widely accepted.
The NFU rightly recognises that climate change is arguably the greatest challenge facing the world and that British farmers are in the front line of increasingly frequent weather extremes. July this year was the driest in England since 1911, and before that were the driest nine months since 1975-76. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester talked about the clear signs of climate change right across the world this year, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, talked movingly about the impact on Pakistan.
Farmers are clearly concerned about the future and need support in protecting, maintaining and enhancing the environment. The NFU also agrees that optimal environmental outcomes should seek to improve nature, enhance air and water quality and build soil health, and has set itself the challenge of agriculture reaching net zero by 2040 in the UK. But the Government have a crucial role to play in this. Food security must be placed at the heart of wider government policies, with a reporting system and clear oversight to ensure that we do not allow our domestic food production to diminish.
CAFOD provided a helpful briefing in which it reminded us that the UK Government made welcome commitments at COP 26 on food and agriculture under the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use. Can the Minister give an update on progress towards delivering on these commitments? We need clear indicators for reporting on new policies and laws, as well as on reduced rates of deforestation, increased land titles for indigenous peoples and local communities, finance for agroecology and actions to repurpose agricultural subsidies.
In their 2021 Food Security Report, the Government described food security as a “complex and multi-faceted issue”. At the same time, it identified risks to the UK’s long-term food security. It said that climate change, climate variability and biodiversity loss all threatened the long-term security of global food production, and concluded that climate change and biodiversity loss were among the biggest medium to long-term risks to UK domestic food production, alongside other factors such as soil degradation and water quality. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned the soil health action plan, and I look forward to the Minister’s update on where it is.
As we have heard, the Government also commissioned the Dasgupta review, which looked at the risk to the world economy of the loss of biodiversity, particularly to food security. It also said that biodiversity loss was damaging the health of the soil needed to grow the food. The noble Baroness mentioned this in her maiden speech, and it is absolutely critical.
Defra’s outcome delivery plan for 2021-22 reaffirmed the Government’s “vision and mission” for the environment. It said:
“We are here to make our air purer, our water cleaner, our land greener and our food more sustainable. Our mission is to restore and enhance the environment for the next generation, leaving it in a better state than we found it.”
Further, the government’s agriculture transition plan said:
“By 2028, we want to see … a renewed agricultural sector, producing healthy food for consumption at home and abroad, where farms can be profitable and economically sustainable without subsidy”
and with
“farming and the countryside contributing significantly to environmental goals including addressing climate change.”
All the work I have just mentioned is excellent—there are lots of fine words here—but we need an integrated approach and real action. The NAO, the Environment Audit Committee and the Treasury have all highlighted the need for Defra to take a lead role in demonstrating the value of more integrated approaches to environmental policy-making, and there are opportunities to develop these approaches. In particular, the National Food Strategy, about which we have heard, and the enabling provisions in the Agriculture Act provide the chance to consider food use, land use and environmental systems all together, so that we deliver for the environment as well as for the economy and society.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned the land use strategy, and my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone spoke with her usual passion about the importance of land use. Why are all these opportunities not being fully grasped and acted on? There is plenty of strategy and policy coming out of government, but to be successful, we need effective delivery. Little is achieved by strategy and policy alone. The resilience and sustainability of our farming system are absolutely critical. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, mentioned that the UK has huge potential to lead the world on this, so let us get on with it, act on that potential and deliver what we need.
We know that any farming system we set up, and any new arrangements that come out of the ELMS agreement, must not be at the expense of tackling climate change and mitigating biodiversity loss. Farmers will need proper government support to achieve this while maintaining food production. My noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch mentioned the lack of a coherent plan in Defra. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, said that we know what we need to do. My question to the Minister, who I am sure has listened very carefully to the debate, as he always does, is: what plans do the new Government have to deliver on all their fine words?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register. I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on securing this debate, and welcome this opportunity to respond on the matter of climate change and biodiversity loss impacts on food security. I thought she made an outstanding speech. I agreed with so much of it, and I shall try to address as many points as I can in the course of my speech. I recognise her extensive experience in the area of food insecurity, particularly as chair of the London Food Board and as a trustee of the Food Foundation.
The Food Foundation is a fantastic organisation doing extensive work on the rise in UK households experiencing food insecurity and providing key research in this area, helping the Government to shape policy.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for drawing to our attention, on this poignant day, the Queen’s Green Canopy. I echo all the sentiments offered to the Royal Family in today’s debate.
I join everyone in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to this place, and congratulate her on an absolutely outstanding maiden speech. One of the best duties that I have as a Minister is being responsible for the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and before being a professor of biodiversity at the University of Oxford, the noble Baroness was director of science at Kew, an extraordinary institution of global repute. It delivers so much for this country, not just in terms of what it provides to us as policymakers and to people who learn from it, but also soft power abroad, giving enormous heft to the attempts to tackle the very subject which we are debating today. The role of the noble Baroness there, and the roles of those people who are still at Kew, are extraordinary. Her addition to this House will be of enormous value. We need people who understand science and who can inform debates. I welcome her wholeheartedly and congratulate her on her maiden speech.
In the UK, we are privileged to have a highly resilient food supply chain, as demonstrated in the Covid-19 response. It is well equipped to deal with situations with the potential to cause disruption. Our high degree of food security is built on supply from diverse sources: strong domestic production as well as imports through stable trade routes. We produce 61% of all the food we need, and 74% of the food we can grow or rear in the UK for all or part of the year. These figures have changed little in the last 20 years.
It is vitally important that we continue to meet our food production needs, while protecting our food supply and resilience from the adverse effects of climate change and biodiversity loss. As the noble Baroness on the Front Bench opposite said, the FAO, in its report The State of Food and Agriculture 2021, asserted:
“To feed a world population forecast to reach 9.7 billion in 2050, agriculture may need to produce 40-54% more food, feed and biofuel feedstock than in 2012. Improving water security, restoring species abundance—particularly in pollinators—and protecting soil health so that it functions effectively, is crucial to food security, and closely linked to the significant action that we are taking to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss.”
It is very welcome to have the Climate Change Committee’s chair here today. Its Independent Assessment of UK Climate Risk was published in 2021. It offers a detailed and up-to-date insight into the growing risks and opportunities that the UK faces from climate change, including the risks to food supply chains. In this report, the committee notes that the risks to future domestic food productivity and food supply chains are high. Water scarcity is likely to be an early factor affecting the viability and quality of agricultural land in many parts of the world, impairing the ability to grow crops in the conventional way. Many noble Lords have made powerful statements about both the domestic experience that we have had here of recent weather extremes, and experiences abroad.
This means that international food security could become more dependent on the ability of the temperate regions of the world, such as the UK, to produce food sustainably. Here in the UK, climate impacts could include reduced soil function due to erosion and through extreme weather events, causing flooding and leading to increasingly compacted soils, and droughts, thereby causing low soil-moisture levels. There is also a greater risk of pests, pathogens and invasive species, as well as disruption to supply chains from climate change overseas.
Every month, we have a biosecurity meeting. I confess, at times, the picture of some of the pests and diseases that are either here or coming here, and with which we are trying to deal, is very bleak. This is a very sobering immediate impact from climate change to which we need to react.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about net zero. The simple answer is that, yes, there is an absolute commitment. It really would not matter if there was not, because it is in law. No Government could possibly get a reversal of our intentions to achieve net zero through both Houses. It was announced today that my colleague in the other place Chris Skidmore is to lead a review on net zero to find the most efficient and fastest way to reach our climate targets. That will report to the new Prime Minister by the end of the year.
Recognising the importance of food security, under the Agriculture Act 2020 the Government made a commitment to produce an assessment of our food security at least once every three years. The first UK food security report was published last December and covers food security in the widest sense, from global food availability and sustainability to domestic supply chain resilience, household food security and food safety. We published the government food strategy this summer, setting out a plan to transform our food system to ensure it is fit for the future.
The point of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about the ability to produce food from less land was well made. Martin Lines, who runs the Nature Friendly Farming Network, said to me—I think this is right—that he is producing the same amount of food from 11% less land. That 11% is turned over to nature. I will come on to talk about how we can be positive because, as we have seen, nature can recover very quickly. There are plenty of examples of that now. We can produce food and be secure in our supply chains, but we can also do it sustainably and protect future generations, as the Dasgupta review requires of us, if we follow that excellent report.
We announced in the food strategy that we will publish a land-use framework for England in 2023, which will set out land-use change principles to balance climate, food and environmental outcomes. We are seeking to deliver as much as we can from our limited supply of land and to deliver the full range of government commitments through multifunctional landscapes. I hope this addresses the good point that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, made. A decade ago, people such as Sir Graham Wynne were talking to me about this need and, I confess, I did not really understand what was meant. I do now and it is vital. The House of Lords report that presaged this government commitment is worth reading; it is the most powerful reason for backing what we seek to do. I hope to keep the House informed of progress, if I am still here—I have yet to be told, in answer to that question.
I was greatly moved by what my noble friend Lady Mobarik said about Pakistan. The UK has committed to spend £11.6 billion of climate change finance, of which £3 billion will be on nature. We are one of the biggest contributors to the International Climate Fund and this will help economies such as Pakistan to cope with these sorts of terrible moments. We are very focused on food vulnerability across the world. We committed an extra £130 million to the World Food Programme and we are a major investor in research and development, especially in areas where agriculture is destabilised by the climate and method of farming there. We need to support those countries to move to more sustainable systems.
The Government are committed to taking action to mitigate climate change and to adapt to its impact. To support farming, we are introducing three schemes, which have been referred to: the sustainable farming incentive, local nature recovery and landscape recovery. Together, these schemes are intended to provide a powerful vehicle for achieving the goals of the 25-year environment plan and our commitment to net zero by 2050, while supporting the rural economy. Through these schemes, farmers and other land managers may enter into agreements to be paid for delivering public goods, including adaptation to and mitigation of climate change.
In her excellent speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, talked about what more could be done in addition to ELMS and whether this was all. There are many other schemes that farmers can access, but I emphasise the importance of the private sector here and the ability of private sector green finance to enhance farmers’ income by doing public goods. Getting some of the trillions of dollars of ESG money sloshing around into dealing with climate change and reversing declines in biodiversity is a very important part of what we are trying to do in promoting green finance spending that is honest and is not greenwash. That is a very important priority that we have in the department.
We included a requirement in the Environment Act to set a new, historic, legally binding target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030. That is seven years away. To be pessimistic, there are many reasons why any Government could fail to hit that target, but we are utterly determined to hit it. But if I want to be optimistic, I point out that the ability of nature to recover very quickly has been proved, on land and at sea, if we protect and enhance those environments in the right way, with highly protected and properly managed marine protected areas. The ability of soils to function properly and the ability of nature to restore and regenerate can be remarkably quick. Nature can be kind to us in that respect if we get on with it. That is what we are doing.
Several measures are being developed to help improve and protect soil in England, making it more resilient to the impacts of climate change. This includes new future farming schemes, which will pay farmers for sustainable approaches to farm husbandry that deliver for the environment, improve and protect soil health and support farm productivity. I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that the soil action health plan will be incorporated into the environmental improvement plan, which is to be presented to Parliament, as is legally required, by January. It might be before then, but it will be by January.
On the important point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, about biodiversity, we in the UK have to do that in seven years, as I said. In nature terms that is a heartbeat, but we are setting out very clear plans as to how we are to achieve that.
The UK is co-chair of the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, a group of more than 100 countries that are championing a global deal for nature and have signed up to protect at least 30% of the world’s land and oceans by 2030, to halt the accelerating loss of species and to protect vital ecosystems that underpin our economic security. Also, COP 26 showcased ambition and action on repurposing public policies and support to deliver sustainable agriculture and food systems. The UK presidency placed nature at the heart of the UNFCCC. Some 45 nations pledged urgent action and investment to protect nature and to shift to more sustainable ways of farming. A ground-breaking package was agreed to halt and reverse forest loss and to transition towards sustainable land use. It includes 142 countries, representing over 90% of the world’s forests, pledging to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030.
The UK has also announced a £65 million Just Rural Transition support programme to help communities move towards more sustainable methods of agriculture and food production. The UK is driving up global ambition on biodiversity, and hopes to create a Paris moment for nature at the Convention on Biological Diversity in Montreal this December.
In the few minutes I have left, I will try to address some of the other points that were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, made a very important point about our position in the global battle to tackle these problems. We are stepping up to respond. We are calling for all countries to keep food trade flowing. At the World Bank and the IMF spring meetings in April, the UK and our partners secured the largest ever financial commitment from the World Bank, of £170 billion before the end of June to support countries that are facing economic hardship resulting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. With G7 allies, we are discussing Germany’s proposal for a G7 global alliance on food security to scale up a rapid needs-based co-ordinated response, building on current peace and security architecture and avoiding a fragmented global response.
Obviously, tackling domestic food poverty is a key priority for the Government. In the Spring Statement the Chancellor announced that we are continuing to provide targeted cost of living support for households in most need. From April, the Government are providing an additional £500 million to help households with the cost of essentials, bringing the total funding for this support to £1 billion. We take food insecurity seriously, which is why the Government added internationally recognised food security questions to the Family Resources Survey. The latest national statistics from the survey show that 93% of households are food secure, but we are working hard and accept that large numbers of households are facing wider cost of living issues.
I think I have already addressed the points made by a number of noble Lords on the food strategy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked how resilient the UK food supply is. Thanks to our farmers, we are almost 100% self-sufficient in fresh poultry and certain vegetables and close to 90% self-sufficient in eggs. A lot of points were made about fruit and horticulture. Our horticultural plan is soon to be announced, as well as incentives to support that sector and make sure that we are producing as much as we can nationally and locally. We want to disrupt the rather clunky supply chains through new technologies such as vertical farming, and we will see this happening in coming years.
There are a number of other points which I will seek to write to noble Lords about, given the pressing time.
I finish by saying that my noble friend Lord Goldsmith has been leading work to ensure that the success of COP 26 is embedded in the COP 15 conference, which was due to the held in Kunming, China, as half of the food we eat is totally dependent on biodiversity. This is a key point. This COP could not come at a more important time, and we have to make sure that we have success at the end of it. What we do nationally and domestically is important—it is important to our citizens; people really mind about the state of our countryside, nature and how we produce food—but we cannot do it in isolation from the global challenges that we face at this important time. Frankly, with the at times terrifying statistics on biodiversity decline, we need to be part of international focus on trying to tackle that as well as making sure that domestically we are farming and producing food sustainably and reversing the tragic decline in species that we have seen in recent decades.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. As I think he knows, I have a great deal of time and respect for his points of view. I am afraid I do not completely share his optimism that we are getting it all right and looking at green and pleasant lands or sunlit uplands—whatever you want to call them. I have been told that I only have two minutes, so I cannot refer to everyone’s fantastic contributions, but I would obviously like to single out the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and say how thrilled I am that she is here.
I also point out that people have talked about what is happening in Pakistan and across the world. In this country we have always been shielded from this stuff; we do not think it affects us. In fact, it is affecting us hugely. The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, talked about the rice production of Pakistan being severely curtailed. That will affect not only our supply but our prices. I chair Feeding Britain and see this every day.
Food security is to do with everyone. Food is at the bottom—or top, wherever you want to put it—of practically everything we do. We can live without energy, but we cannot live without food. This has been shown by the fantastic contributions from everyone in this House. It is in everything, whether we are talking about water, soil or big companies that run the world. It needs an extreme shake-up. At the moment, we fiddle at the margins. Politically it looks impossible, but that is no reason to say that we should not try.
I thank noble Lords very much for being here tonight. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to as many people as possible as some really important points were made.