House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we start our business, I wish to invite the House to commemorate a tragic and sombre event. On 17 December 1942—80 years ago, on Saturday—the then Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, read to the House a declaration issued by the wartime allies condemning the treatment of Jewish people by the Nazis in occupied Europe. The declaration followed a diplomatic note sent to the allied powers a week earlier, by the Polish Foreign Minister in exile—the first official report that the holocaust was under way. The evil acts described in the declaration were, and remain, difficult to comprehend. It said:
“From all the occupied countries Jews are being transported, in conditions of appalling horror and brutality, to Eastern Europe…None of those taken away are ever heard of again. The able-bodied are slowly worked to death in labour camps. The infirm are left to die of exposure and starvation, or are deliberately massacred in mass executions.”
After the Foreign Secretary read the declaration and was questioned on it, the Member for Islington South, William Cluse, asked:
“Is it possible, in your judgement, Mr. Speaker, for Members of the House to rise in their places and stand in silence in support of this protest against disgusting barbarism?”
Speaker FitzRoy replied:
“That should be a spontaneous act by the House as a whole.”
Hansard records that
“Members of the House then stood in silence.”—[Official Report, 17 December 1942; Vol. 385, c. 2083-2087.]
A journalist covering the event said:
“I have never seen anything like this silence which was like the frown of the conscience of mankind.”
Today, we are honoured to be joined in the Gallery by seven survivors of the holocaust, representatives of Britain’s Jewish community and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. As an exception, and because this is such a poignant moment, I have agreed that the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit and our House of Commons photographer can capture images of them here today.
To remember that important moment, and as a tribute to all those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis, I now invite the House to join me for a minute of silent reflection.
The House observed a one-minute silence.
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Andrew Bowie)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing the House to take a moment this morning to show our resolve, and the country’s resolve, never to forget the horrors and barbarism committed on our continent within living memory. We will always remember the holocaust, and man’s inhumanity to man, and we resolve to work to ensure that the suffering of so many is never forgotten and never repeated.
In the past two years we have resolved nearly 400 trade barriers, from opening markets for UK pork in Mexico and Chile to UK poultry in Japan. The recent deals with Australia and New Zealand also provide various mechanisms to identify and address trade barriers. This year the UK achieved the first export of British lamb to the USA in more than 20 years, a market estimated by industry to be worth £37 million over the first five years.
David Duguid
May I take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend to his post, and to associate myself with his remarks regarding today’s commemoration of the holocaust?
My hon. Friend, as a fellow Aberdeenshire Member of Parliament, will be aware, as should everyone, of the high quality of food and drink that Scotland has to offer the world. He will also be aware of the concerns raised by seed potato growers in Aberdeenshire and elsewhere across Scotland about the European Union’s intransigence in not allowing the absolute same standard of seed potatoes that had been available to meet the vast demand for them across the European continent. What is the Department for International Trade doing either to resolve that issue or, indeed, to find new markets for that wonderful product?
Andrew Bowie
I thank my hon. Friend, and constituency neighbour but one, for all that he does to champion farmers in Aberdeenshire, and indeed across Scotland, as he did when he was a Scotland Office Minister. It might interest him to know that UK exports of seed potatoes to non-EU markets increased by 25% between 2018 and 2021, and last year nearly 90% of all UK seed potato exports were to non-EU countries, supported by recent trade agreements with Egypt and Morocco. The DIT Scotland team, based in Edinburgh, as he knows well, works closely with the Scottish Government and their agencies to ensure that Scottish companies are supported to pursue opportunities for their products in new markets.
Wendy Morton
The number of food and farming businesses in my constituency is not high, but none the less they are really important. They include businesses such as Backyard Brewhouse, a craft brewery. British farming is renowned for its high-quality produce, so what is my hon. Friend’s Department doing to take advantage of this and do all it can to promote our exceptional British produce?
Andrew Bowie
If my right hon. Friend were to invite me, I would be delighted to visit the Backyard Brewhouse in Brownhills. British food and drink are among the best in the world, renowned for their quality and provenance. DIT is delivering an incredibly successful programme of activity for our exports, matching our producers with international buyers. We are placing eight new dedicated agrifood attachés in growth markets around the world.
Selaine Saxby
What more is my hon. Friend hoping to deliver to ensure that our great British produce carries “Brand Britain,” through national and regional UK geographical indicators to an international stage in existing and future free trade arrangements?
Andrew Bowie
I thank my hon. Friend for what she does for the food producers of North Devon. We have fantastic British produce, with protected geographical indications, such as Welsh lamb, Scotch whisky and Stilton, which are promoted and recognised around the globe through the GREAT Britain & Northern Ireland campaign, and at home through our “Made in the UK, Sold to the World” marketing strategy. This supports small and medium-sized enterprises to understand and access the benefits of FTAs and wider export opportunities and future success stories from all parts of the UK. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss what more we can do to support exports from North Devon and, indeed, the rest of the UK.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Tapadh leibh, Mr Speaker. As we have heard, trade barriers are a problem for seed potato growers, and yesterday the International Trade Committee heard that the biggest change that a Government could introduce to get rid of these and help the UK economy would be to rejoin the customs union and single market. How much do the Government care about the UK economy?
Andrew Bowie
I thank my hon. Friend—the hon. Member for that question. This Government care passionately about the UK economy. It might interest the hon. Member to know that the EU remains a vital trading partner for the UK. Contrary to the claim that trade with the EU has collapsed, Office for National Statistics figures show that total trade in goods and services between the UK and the EU was worth £652.6 billion in the year to June. That is up by 18%.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
British farmers could lose out on up to £148 million-worth of growth owing to the New Zealand trade deal, according to a report by the International Trade Committee. A report by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee said that British farmers could lose out on up to £278 million-worth of growth owing to the Australia trade deal. What is the Minister going to do to address those huge potential losses?
Andrew Bowie
As the hon. Member is aware, in our negotiations with New Zealand and Australia we have ensured that there are huge protections for British food and farming, including a long period of transition to allow the market to adapt. We are committed to promoting and driving up exports of British produce overseas, as well as to ensuring that the great British produce we deliver at home is protected.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
If you want to enter into the Christmas spirit, Mr Speaker, I would recommend a dram of Dalmore, Glenmorangie, Balblair, Clynelish or Old Pulteney. It is a widely recognised fact that the highland single malts are the best whiskies in the world. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister is an Aberdeenshire man, will he make sure that sales of those whiskies are pushed very strongly?
Andrew Bowie
I would be very pleased to visit the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and try all those fine whiskies. I had a meeting with the Scotch Whisky Association just last week. It is very excited about the current trajectory of Scotch whisky sales overseas, and very, very excited about what we are doing in India to reduce tariffs on Scotch whisky so that we can further promote that fantastic Scottish export around the world.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
According to the Centre for Business Prosperity, more than 40% of products such as shellfish and seed potatoes are no longer exported to European markets, for want of a veterinary agreement with the EU—yet the Government do nothing. I know that exports in ex-Prime Ministers’ speeches have increased recently, thanks to the efforts of Ministers, but why will they not act now to negotiate a veterinary agreement, which would be transformational for British farmers, thousands of British businesses and the British food industry in particular?
Andrew Bowie
This negativity about our export position with the European Union is precisely why so many people are turned off from the Labour party and have been for such a long time. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, trade with the EU is actually up by 18%. The veterinary agreement would involve dynamic alignment with the EU, which I believe the Labour party is opposed to; the hon. Gentleman might want to correct the record. In terms of overall relations with the EU, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy is engaging every single day with our European partners to see what we can do to drive down trade barriers further, so that we can promote British exports on the continent. Notwithstanding that, we are looking for new export opportunities in emerging markets around the world.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The New Zealand trade deal will mean an expected £150 million hit to agriculture and food-related industries each year. An impact analysis shows that the Australia trade deal will mean an expected £94 million hit to farming and a £225 million hit to food processing each year. On top of that, UK food and drink exports to the EU have already fallen, despite what the Minister says, by more than £1.3 billion, because of the Brexit deal that this Government signed. Given that mounting charge sheet, how can farmers and food producers in this country ever again trust a word that the Tories say?
Andrew Bowie
We will take no lectures from the SNP on supporting Scottish farmers and food producers. It is not the UK Government who are accused of operating in an information void due to the lack of information and slow progress of Scotland’s post-Brexit agricultural Bill. It is not the UK Government who were criticised by the National Farmers Union of Scotland for not voting for the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill a couple of weeks ago. This Government are committed to supporting Scottish, and indeed British, food producers and exporters, not creating division and stoking negativity, which is all the SNP ever brings to the table.
Richard Thomson
I think Aberdeenshire farmers will take that with a large pinch of salt. The Secretary of State says that she is a huge believer in British farming and the role it plays in our national life. She wrote an article a few years ago on fears about the impact of opening up our markets on domestic producers such as farmers. In the light of all that, how long does the Minister seriously think it will be before he and his colleagues trigger the mechanisms to bring an end to these disastrous trade deals with Australia and New Zealand?
Andrew Bowie
The trade deals with New Zealand and Australia are great deals for British exporters and this country. As I said, unlike the Scottish National party, we are committed to championing Scottish and British exports and food and drink around the world, not creating negativity. It is time that the hon. Gentleman championed great British exporters—great Aberdeenshire exporters—instead of coming here with all that scare- mongering and negativity, as he does weekly.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
The Department for International Trade is absolutely committed to increasing trade opportunities for the UK financial services sector. Through our network of in-market sector specialists located in Europe, India, Singapore and beyond, the Department is identifying and removing market access barriers and supporting companies to export their services to the world. Working with organisations such as the City of London, the Investment Association and others, we are promoting the UK’s world-class financial services overseas. We are also championing financial services through our free trade agreements.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Has the Minister a programme of support for fintech and start-ups in that sector?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that sector, which is hugely important to the UK economy and a major export generator. Our export strategy, which we published last year, outlines the Government support available for British exporters, including the financial services sector. The strategy updates the Department’s support for services firms and helps to give businesses and financial tech innovators the flexibility and resilience to thrive and trade globally. As well as providing large amounts of online support and information, including webinars, the Department provides tailored support services—for example, through trade advisers—from which firms of all sizes can benefit.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
If we are to increase trade opportunities for the financial services sector, does the Minister agree that we must deal with the prevalence of money laundering for Russian kleptocrats, which has earned London the nickname “Londongrad”? Does he believe that we need to ensure that we can tackle such illegal activity in the City?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and, of course, that is exactly what we are doing. The Government are very aware of the issues and, with the support of the whole House, have taken robust action on sanctions against Russia, and will continue to do so.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
In 2021, the Conservative Government concluded the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement—the first major trade deal that the UK struck as an independent trading nation. That agreement provides significant opportunities for British business in Japan and goes further than the previous EU deal. It also strengthens our case for accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. The UK Government are also working hard to reduce barriers to trade in Japan—for example, last year, we secured market access for UK poultry, which is worth £65 million over five years.
Charlotte Nichols
Last month, I visited Japan with the British Council where I saw its fantastic work to promote UK arts and culture and to strengthen our trading relationship with a key ally in the Indo-Pacific region. Does the Minister agree that the British Council is a soft power powerhouse, and can he tell me what work the Department does with it to boost trade around the world?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. We work closely with all aspects of UK hard and soft power abroad and we frequently work with the British Council, particularly on our education exports, which are a huge sector and a huge opportunity for this country. We engage regularly with the British Council to ensure that the DIT is at the forefront of our educational offer in particular and that the ties of friendship promoted by the British Council feed through into our commercial relationship. There is no better example of that than our excellent recent deal with Japan.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
In the last financial year, DIT supported foreign direct investments generating over £7 billion-worth of economic impact to the UK economy and creating nearly 73,000 new jobs, of which 34,000 were outside London and the south-east, contributing to our levelling-up agenda. In 2021-22, we supported 91 inward investment projects aligned with the 10-point plan into the UK, which delivered £13 billion of green investment. In October, as part of the Green Trade & Investment Expo, I visited the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult in Blyth—an excellent example of our British low-carbon sectors.
Tom Randall
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure she will agree that the benefits of investment need to be seen throughout the United Kingdom. In that context, will she tell me what her Department is doing to support the levelling-up agenda and, in particular, to locate staff in the regions and nations?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. DIT intends to grow over 550 roles outside London by 2025. Our second major location will be the Darlington economic campus, alongside three new trade and investment offices in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. I would also like my hon. Friend, as an east midlands MP, to know that I visited businesses in the east midlands just last month, and I am supported by DIT staff based all around the region, who are doing a fantastic job on trade advisory.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
In the past financial year, we have resolved 192 individual trade barriers in over 70 countries. Forty-five of these alone are estimated to be worth around £5 billion to British businesses over the next five years. The Department is working tirelessly to remove the most prominent bilateral trade barriers—work that has the potential to deliver £20 billion-worth of opportunities for businesses across the entire UK.
Mark Garnier
My right hon. Friend’s Department has done sterling work in achieving free trade deals with 60 or so countries around the world. However, many other countries are incredibly enthusiastic to do free trade agreements, and none more so than the Kingdom of Thailand. As the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Thailand, may I urge my right hon. Friend to do all he can to move talks beyond where they are now to secure a free trade agreement with the Kingdom of Thailand, which is keen to continue building on our great trading relationship?
Greg Hands
First, I commend my hon. Friend for his work as a former Minister at the Department. He will be delighted to know that we have increased the number of countries with which we have a free trade agreement to 71, in addition to the European Union itself. I also commend him for his work as trade envoy to Thailand and Brunei. He will know that we had our first ministerial joint economic and trade committee with Thailand in June, and we have agreed to deepen our trade relationship by developing an enhanced trade partnership. There are no current plans in place for an FTA, but this enhanced trade partnership could be the first step in laying the foundations for a potential FTA in the future.
Scott Benton
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Gulf region offers huge opportunities for British businesses and their export potential? Is he able to update the House on his Department’s work in supporting trade to the region?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is always looking for opportunities for Blackpool businesses and his constituency. He is right: the UK is negotiating an ambitious trade deal with the Gulf Co-operation Council, and an FTA is expected to boost trade between our economies by at least 16%. We also engage bilaterally with GCC countries. For example, a key recent success was being able to get Holland & Barrett vitamin and food supplements into Qatar, which was worth an estimated £250,000.
Sir Robert Syms
I commend the Minister of State on all the hard work he is doing—I am an avid follower of his Twitter feed, and it is interesting to find out which country he is in on any individual day. We do a lot of good exports of cars and so on, but one area we need to grow is invisibles—financial and other services. When we do trade agreements, are we putting enough effort into ensuring that our service sector can take full advantage of them?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head—quite apart from the fact that he follows me so closely on Twitter. I would perhaps commend that more widely, and I hope my constituents get a look in from time to time. I thank my hon. Friend for that.
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head when he talks about the importance of the services sector. Services are 80% of our economy. We are the world’s second largest services exporter. I used to sit at the EU Foreign Affairs Council on trade, and it was often difficult to get the EU to focus as well as it might have done on services possibilities. We now have an independent trade policy, which allows us to give services the focus that UK service companies and service providers deserve, and financial services are very much at the heart of that. We always make sure that our services offer is right at the forefront of our FTA talks and other bilateral trade talks.
Mark Pawsey
GE Power Conversion, which is based in my Rugby constituency, has strong relationships with shipowners and designers who are increasingly choosing to have ships built in China. They see opportunities for offering their expertise in electrification of large vessels, as the maritime sector decarbonises. Will the Minister provide some clarity on the Government’s approach to trade with businesses in China and give some indication of the steps that UK exporters need to take to compete with international competitors in that market and to gain full advantage of the opportunities that are available there?
Greg Hands
In successive Government positions, I have always noticed how diverse the businesses are in my hon. Friend’s Rugby constituency, right at the very industrial heartland of this country. He is right to raise the matter of trade with China. The UK engages with China. We remain open to Chinese trade and investment, while ensuring that robust protections are in place to safeguard the UK’s prosperity, values and security. He raises the issue of GE. We are engaging DIT officials based both in the UK and in China and already engaging with GE.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am not sure that I follow the Minister’s Twitter feed so avidly as other Members—[Interruption.] Easy! I suspect that he might have retweeted something that was published by the Conservative party earlier this year, which said:
“We’ve secured new free trade deals with over 70 countries since 2016. That’s over £800bn worth of new free trade.”
But that is not true, is it? Actually, the UK Statistics Authority has told the Conservative party to stop publishing such fibs. Did the Minister retweet that, and, if he did so, will he apologise?
Greg Hands
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that. He has pointed out the fact that we have done trade deals with 71 countries plus the EU, and that there is about £80 billion of exports for those countries. He may have done this inadvertently, but he draws attention to the fact that the Labour party has failed pretty much to support any of the deals that he is quoting. It abstained on the Japan deal. It abstained on the Australia and New Zealand deals. I bet the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) did not mention that to the Australian Trade Minister when he saw him last week. According to his Twitter feed, the party split three ways on Canada. It has failed to support any of these trade deals over the years. It is a bit rich of the party to raise it now.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Of course the Minister will bluster and try to divert as much as he possibly can from the substance, as he normally does. Sir Christopher Chote from the UK Statistics Authority wrote to me, saying:
“It is misleading to describe the £800 billion figure as a measure of ‘new global trade’ resulting from the recent deals.”
That is black and white. Will the Minister now apologise on behalf of his party and Ministers for sharing that tweet and misinformation and set the record straight? Yes, or no?
Greg Hands
May I start by correcting the hon. Gentleman: it is actually Sir Robert Chote who is the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority? I do not resile from the fact that we have concluded free trade agreements with 71 countries plus the EU. I notice, of course, that he voted against the EU deal, preferring no deal. I checked before coming here exactly what the SNP’s record was on these deals. I will read it out. On Japan, it was against —[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Bowie, you got carried away yesterday. I know that it is Christmas; do not let me give you that present.
Greg Hands
I checked the record. On Japan, the SNP was against. On Singapore, it was against. On Canada, it was against. On South Africa, it was against. On Korea, it was against. On Ukraine, it was even absent. So I will not take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman about the 71 deals. Perhaps he might start supporting a trade deal for once, and then he can get behind British exporters.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As an active Member of Parliament for my constituency, I know that my Northern Ireland businesses are subject to trade barriers and red tape day in, day out, as we are subject to different trading guidelines from the rest of the UK. The Minister is always helpful, so will he tell us what steps will be taken to address the delay in the passage of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, to ensure that Northern Ireland can truly be a full economic partner of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Greg Hands
I strongly believe in the actual and potential capabilities of Northern Ireland as a great exporting part of the UK. Northern Ireland absolutely plays a full part in our free trade agreements. One standout feature of the Australia deal was about the ability of Northern Irish machinery exporters—a big amount of machinery goes from Northern Ireland to Australia and to New Zealand. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Northern Ireland protocol is an active area of negotiation between my colleagues at the Foreign Office and the Commission. I am sure that he and I will look forward to seeing a resolution for those barriers; we recognise that the Northern Ireland protocol is not working for the people of Northern Ireland and we look forward to seeing a resolution in due course.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Surely it is vital that the Government support British businesses, but even senior Conservatives have admitted that the Government have failed on that front. As it is nearly Christmas, I thought we would indulge in a game of “guess who?”. Does the Minister know if the Secretary of State knows which one of her colleagues called the UK’s trade deals “one-sided”? Was it: the former Environment Secretary; the former exports Minister; or her boss, the Prime Minister?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Lady for her festive cheers and Christmas quiz. I am immensely proud, as I know the Secretary of State is, of our teams, right across the Department for International Trade, who are out negotiating. We are negotiating with more partners at the moment than any other country in the world on free trade agreements. Those negotiation rounds have been going on recently, into December, with people working incredibly hard to land the best deals for Britain. I am just looking forward to the day when perhaps the Labour party and the other Opposition parties might start supporting these deals, getting behind British business and British exporters into our excellent free trade future.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Andrew Bowie)
Boosting exports is at the forefront of this Government’s agenda. I am pleased to say that UK exports were worth nearly £760 billion in the 12 months to the end of October 2022—that was an increase of £57 billion, once adjusted for inflation. Our Export Support Service has received more than 11,800 inquiries since its launch in October 2021, providing call-backs to customers and referring companies to other Department for International Trade services more effectively, to support them on their exporting journey.
Mohammad Yasin
The UK trade performance is the worst on record. Lost output is estimated at £100 billion a year. With such an appalling record, it is hardly surprising that the Government are making false claims to have secured £800 billion in new free trade deals when most post-Brexit trade deals are just roll-overs. Businesses in Bedford, big and small, are overburdened with red tape. Will the Minister explain how businesses in my constituency can improve growth and trade with the biggest trading bloc in the world?
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, but I am afraid that what he says is simply not true: the Japan deal was not a roll-over, and neither were those with Australia and New Zealand; the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership discussions we are in right now will not lead to a roll- over; and a deal with India, where my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just returned from, will not be a roll-over. The hon. Gentleman talks about the EU, so I am afraid I am going to have to repeat what I said earlier: trade with the EU in the year up to June was up by about 18% and worth £652.6 billion. We are committed to growing our exports around the world and supporting British exporters to get out there and sell fantastic British goods and services into new markets, but we are also committed to continuing to sell into the EU and we continue to do so very effectively indeed.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Farmers in my constituency —I remind the House that I am one—have expressed concerns about ensuring that agricultural interests are adequately taken into account in the upcoming free trade agreement with Canada and the trans-pacific trade agreement that the Minister refers to. I welcome him to his place; will he please invite the Secretary of State to meet me and other colleagues representing agricultural constituencies to discuss those concerns?
Andrew Bowie
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for bringing to my attention that it will also be a new agreement between Canada and ourselves, which I forgot to mention in my earlier answer. We are pursuing an ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement with Canada that builds on our existing trading relationship, already worth £23 billion. We have been clear that the new agreement must work for British exporters, including those in our agriculture and food and drink industries. That includes maintaining our high animal welfare and food safety standards for farmers in Ludlow and across the UK.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
According to a recent report by the Social Market Foundation, while world goods exports were 7.9% higher by mid-2022 than they were at the end of 2019, the UK’s goods exports were 21% lower. “Could do better” would be a kind end-of-term report. Will the Minister now commit to a recommendation from the Institute of Directors to monitor and publish the impact of Government assistance from the Department’s teams—both overseas and UK- based—to assess their effectiveness and inform improvements so that all businesses get the best possible support for their exporting needs?
Andrew Bowie
This Department and, in fact, this entire Government are committed to growing our exports. We are going to export our way to growth and, in the 12 months to December 2022, trade was worth £748 billion. We are rolling out our export support service, making export champions more visible and more available across all nations and regions of this United Kingdom. We are committed to working with small and medium-sized enterprises to get them into exporting and we are supporting those companies that export already. We are driving up exports from this country and our new independent trade policy—something that, if the Labour party had its way, we would not have in the first place—allows us to do just that.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
The UK’s trade policy works to increase access to good quality, good value food from around the world. For example, our recent free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand reduce or remove tariffs on the vast majority of goods, which could help to lower prices. However, there are many factors which contribute to UK food prices and the precise impact of each is uncertain. Beyond immediate price changes, security of global food supply is essential to guarantee the availability and affordability of UK food in the long term.
Gavin Newlands
That is all well and good, but a new report from the UK in a Changing Europe think tank has said that new trade barriers as a result of Brexit have caused a 6% increase in food prices in the UK. Asked why food prices are rising, the former chief executive officer of Sainsburys, Justin King, answered “Brexit”, and this month a Bank of England policy maker went on the record to say that,
“Brexit has fuelled a surge in UK food prices”.
Does the Minister agree that staying in the EU kept food prices low and that independence and the European Union would keep prices down?
Greg Hands
I am always interested when the hon. Gentleman cites various reports, many of which I have of course read and studied closely, but I like to return to the facts. I checked beforehand, because I thought he might raise this. He is right that food price inflation is a real concern, and yesterday’s inflation data showed that food prices are still rising even though overall inflation is falling, which will cause difficulties for many countries across this country. However, the premise of his question is not quite right: in the UK, the most recent data available shows that food and non-alcoholic beverage prices rose by 16.4%, whereas in the EU27, for the same period, they rose by more—17.3%.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
In this House I have been a champion for promoting the availability of affordable, healthy and nutritious food to those from all regions of the UK and all backgrounds. Families are feeling the cost of living pressures, as evidenced by research from the British Retail Consortium, which recorded a record high 12.5% inflation in UK food prices in November. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give me that he is doing everything in his power through his trade negotiations to mitigate the effect of food price inflation on ordinary working families?
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is right to raise, as I did just a moment ago, the importance of this issue to families up and down the country, including in Stoke-on-Trent. The Government have comprehensive measures in place to support families through this winter, including council tax discounts, and energy and further help. On food and trade policy, ensuring that we remain committed to free trade, and that we have diverse sources of supply, is essential. We must ensure that Britain remains open for food exporters to come to the UK and help to keep prices down, as well as recognising the vital job done by our own domestic agriculture and food production sectors.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
The UK-Australia free trade agreement is expected to unlock more than £10 billion pounds of additional bilateral trade. We are working at pace to implement it, so that businesses can benefit from it as soon as possible. The Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill is making its passage through Parliament. It passed Report and Third Reading on Monday, and was introduced into the House of Lords on 13 December. The Government and the devolved Administrations are working together to progress the required statutory instruments to implement the agreement. We expect the free trade agreement to come into force in spring 2023.
Gerald Jones
The UK-Australia trade deal has been beset by difficulties and major delays to its passage through this House, and even the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), no longer has to put a “positive gloss” on what was agreed. I, too, have serious concerns about the impact of the deal on Welsh and UK farmers. Will the Minister explain the delay behind the scenes? What discussions have been had with business managers about the delays to the Bill’s passage through the House, and will he give us some clarity?
Nigel Huddleston
I would like to correct the hon. Gentleman. We are progressing at pace, and we are having conversations with the devolved Administrations—indeed, I had conversations with Ministers from Wales and Scotland recently. Overall, enthusiasm for the deals is considerable right across the UK. Let us not forget that they will boost the economy, to the tune of £2.3 billion for the Australia deal and more than £800 million for the New Zealand deal. That will bring huge benefits right across the country, and all nations of the UK will benefit from a 53% and 59% boost to bilateral trade through the Australia and New Zealand deals respectively. We all want to move at pace, and we are having constructive conversations with the devolved Administrations.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The UK- Australia free trade agreement is, so the House has been told, a stepping stone to accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. As we saw on Monday, it is not clear that Ministers have learned the lessons from the rushed negotiations on the Australia deal, and there is real concern that the existing rules of the CPTPP will be largely forced on Britain. I am sure the Minister will not want Britain to be a rule taker, so can he assure us that we will not be subject to any new secret courts through the investor-state dispute settlement?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that discussions with the CPTPP are ongoing, and we are confident that we will strike a mutually beneficial and extremely good deal. I advise him to watch this space.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
The UK trade remedies framework has been established to ensure that the Trade Remedies Authority has full independence when investigating unfair trading practices. As is the case with aluminium extrusions, the TRA provides thorough, objective and expert advice to Ministers based on evidence collected during the course of an investigation. The reasons for the TRA’s recommendation will be published alongside the ministerial decision to accept or reject the recommendation in its entirety.
Liz Twist
Over the past year I have been asking about the impact of the Trade Remedies Authority’s determination on this issue, and I now hear that the final determination is due to be published in days. There are real concerns that the proposed tariffs will do nothing to support our domestic aluminium extrusion producers, such as Hydro in my constituency, and producers in the constituencies of other MPs. What support will the Minister give to our domestic aluminium extrusion producers, should their fears about the dumping of aluminium extrusion prove correct? Will he meet me to discuss the situation?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Lady is correct. She will be aware that the recommendations are due to be published soon; she will understand that I cannot pre-empt today the conclusions of the investigation. As I have said, the TRA is independent and it reviews evidence very carefully indeed. On the hon. Lady’s other question, I would be delighted to meet her to discuss the matter further.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
Yesterday, I returned from Delhi after holding trade talks with my counterpart, Minister Piyush Goyal, during the sixth round of the UK-India free trade agreement negotiations. We agreed that an ambitious, balanced deal that works for both our countries can be reached and should be reached at the earliest opportunity. Meeting key UK and Indian businesses at the UK India Business Council and Confederation of Indian Industry trade conference made clearer still the opportunities that the FTA would create for businesses and future generations in both our countries. I look forward to updating the House at the end of our round.
Gareth Bacon
In 2019, our trade with CPTPP countries reached £110.7 billion, so does my right hon. Friend share my optimism that joining the bloc will increase our national prosperity? Does she agree that free trade and helping businesses such as those in Orpington to export are how we will create genuine, long-term, sustainable wealth?
Kemi Badenoch
I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for CPTPP. Joining CPTPP will offer new opportunities for businesses in Orpington and across the UK. The potential increase to UK GDP is projected to be £1.8 billion. More than 99% of British goods exported will be eligible for tariff-free trade, including in new markets such as Malaysia. Customs procedures will become clearer and more efficient. Firms working in services will have increased market access, greater transparency and predictability.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
May I wish all hon. Members a very happy Christmas? In the spirit of Christmas cheer, I will offer the Minister for Trade Policy some help after his struggles in the Christmas quiz from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) earlier: it was, of course, the Prime Minister who said that the Australia deal was “one-sided”.
There is more:
“The first step is to recognise that the Australia trade deal is not actually a very good deal for the UK”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]
Those are not my words, but the words of the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). Quite simply, why should anyone have confidence in the Conservatives’ trade policy when they do not have confidence in it themselves?
Kemi Badenoch
I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The Australia free trade agreement is a great deal. It will boost the household wages going into our pockets by an estimated £900 million. It will grow the UK economy to be an estimated £2.3 billion bigger in 2035. It will see the removal of all tariffs on UK exports, which will make it easier to sell all UK goods, from cars to chocolate and Scotch whisky. There will be lower prices at home. I had a meeting with the Australian Trade Minister, and we had a very good conversation. I think it is a shame that the shadow Secretary of State did the same and is now coming here to say negative things about the deal.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
If the Secretary of State thinks that those views are nonsense, I suggest she takes them up with the Prime Minister and the former Secretary of State. It was their judgment that I put to her, not my words.
On trade, the reality is that the Conservatives are delivering either bad deals or no deals at all. That is what happens when we have a Government who are high on rhetoric and devoid of strategy, with workers and businesses paying the price. Let me ask a simple question. If the Government will not hit their target of 80% of our trade being under FTAs by the end of the year—and they won’t—when will they hit it?
Kemi Badenoch
As Secretary of State, I have been very clear that what is important is the substance of trade deals, not the timing. It is about the deals, not the day. I am negotiating quality trade deals for the UK that will last for generations to come. We are thinking about the future, not trying to re-fight the Brexit debate.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend and Medtrade for their support in sending supplies to Ukraine. My Department is committed to supporting innovative life sciences companies; he will have seen the Board of Trade’s recent report on life sciences. DIT North West has worked with Medtrade for several years to grow its exports and will continue to support its export journey. I am sure that the exports Minister—the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie)—will be happy to meet him to further discuss what we can do.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State recently announced signing a memorandum of understanding with the US state of South Carolina focusing on life sciences and automotive—areas that are very important to the north-east. Could she set out exactly how businesses in Newcastle can benefit from that memorandum of understanding and whether it is supposed to compensate for the lack of any trade agreement with the United States?
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
It was me who signed the deal with South Carolina last Wednesday, and the hon. Lady can see the deal for herself on gov.uk. We have done deals with Indiana and North Carolina. Offshore wind is important for her area of the country, and North Carolina brought in an offshore wind delegation to see its governor just a couple of months after the signing of the deal, so these deals are leading to tangible opportunities.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Greg Hands
I am delighted that my hon. Friend raised Morocco, because although they were defeated in the end, their performance was marvellous in the World cup last night. We have a new agreement with Morocco. We are keen to diversify our sources of food supply. We had the inaugural UK-Morocco trade and investment sub-committee meeting in July, and I look forward to doing more with Morocco, as I am sure my hon. Friend does.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Will the Government accept that if the anti-dumping duties placed on Chinese imported aluminium extrusions are too low, the result could be the loss of thousands upon thousands of British jobs?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
As I said a few moments ago, a report will be coming out very soon, and we will be able to comment further at that point. We have had many representations, and the Trade Remedies Authority has worked very carefully on these issues.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Andrew Bowie)
I can indeed. At the green trade and investment expo in Gateshead last month, I saw many companies from around the UK that are engaged in exporting renewable energies technology around the world. Indeed, the UK is home to world-leading companies in the design and development of renewable energy, and the Department for International Trade has already supported over £5 billion of exports across the energy and infrastructure sectors in the past.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Centre for Business Prosperity at Aston University has estimated that 42% of British exports have disappeared from European shelves since Brexit. Is the Secretary of State proud of her party’s 12-year record in charge of export policy?
Andrew Bowie
The hon. Member obviously was not listening to what I said earlier. Trade with the EU is actually up 18%. Instead of coming here and talking down Scottish and British businesses that are exporting to the continent and around the world, he should join us—he should be here championing Scotch whisky exports, which are up; he should be here championing Scotch beef exports, which are up; and he should be here championing the great Scottish financial services exports, which are up around the world and transforming lives for the better.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is a tireless advocate of ties with the Commonwealth. We already have a trade envoy appointed to 15 Commonwealth nations. We have no plans to add a dedicated Commonwealth trade envoy to the programme. We have trade agreements with 33 Commonwealth members, with a further 16 benefiting from reduced tariffs, and six of the 11 trans-Pacific partnership countries are Commonwealth members.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Northern Ireland’s food and drink exports are worth some £5.4 billion, and we export 65% of the sector’s manufacturing to the UK, the EU and the rest of the world. What discussions has the Minister had with the Ulster Farmers’ Union, in which I declare an interest, to commit to protecting Northern Ireland’s agriculture industry in any future trade deal?
Kemi Badenoch
I have not personally had any meetings with the Ulster Farmers’ Union, but one of my Ministers has. I want to emphasise that our export strategy is focused on such issues. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with more specifics, I would be very happy to take them up on his behalf.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Andrew Bowie
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work not only as the MP for Waveney but as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the British offshore oil and gas industry. He is well apprised of what we are doing in the energy sector. DIT and the Office for Investment work directly with project leads, investors and financial institutions, and we are seeing excellent progress. For example, ScottishPower is investing £2.5 billion in its East Anglia ONE project, the first of four in the region, including a £25 million state-of-the-art operations and maintenance facility in Lowestoft. Events such as the recent green trade and investment expo in Gateshead, which I mentioned, are showcasing UK opportunities to the world in many technologies, such as carbon capture and hydrogen.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Exports such as squid from the Falklands are an enormously important part of the economies of our overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that everything possible is being done to support the trading relationships of this important part of the British family?
Kemi Badenoch
We work closely with the Crown dependencies and overseas territories to ensure their interests are actively represented in our FTA programme and trade negotiations. DIT officials have fortnightly contact with them, and the Minister for Trade Policy has recently engaged with them and will continue to do so.
Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I was interested to hear the Secretary of State’s update on India. Can she go into more detail on how many chapters have closed and on the big opportunities in this trading relationship?
Kemi Badenoch
Sixteen chapters have closed. I returned from India just yesterday, and I am still a bit jetlagged. We had two days of invigorating trade talks. Minister Goyal and I had face-to-face discussions on the priority areas within the FTA, including goods, services and investment. I had meetings with multiple businesses that the embassy and all our fantastic officials are supporting.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy mentioned the North Carolina trade agreement he has just signed. Can he explain how this will help businesses in places such as West Oxfordshire to export to every corner of the United States, our largest trading partner?
Greg Hands
We have now signed three of these deals. Last week, we brought Utah a bit closer and we have agreed to start negotiations with California. As a practical example, an offshore wind delegation went to see Governor Cooper of North Carolina just a few months after the deal. We had the first meeting of the working group on Indiana last Monday, at which we talked about increasing the opportunities for UK firms to bid into state procurement markets in the United States. As we know, the US is a very federal system and some state procurement markets offer great potential for companies across the UK, including in my hon. Friend’s Oxfordshire constituency.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
We have recently signed several agreements with Indonesia, which is good news, and the follow-up is now critical. Will my right hon. Friend confirm, first, that the next round of Joint Economic and Trade Committee talks will happen here in London in the first quarter of next year? Secondly, will the new Government-to-Government framework have Indonesia as a priority? Thirdly, and perhaps most intriguingly, can we move to negotiations on an FTA as soon as possible?
Kemi Badenoch
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a doughty champion of Indonesia and on being such a good trade envoy. He is right that we want to have a JETCO early next year. The Department is liaising closely with its counterparts in Indonesia, and I would be delighted to invite him to assist us in all our engagements to make sure we see all the good things that he wants to happen.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I start by thanking you, Mr Speaker, for leading us in the one-minute silence commemorating 80 years since this House recognised that the holocaust was taking place in Nazi-occupied Europe. It was a powerful moment for the House, and thank you, too, for the welcome you gave to the incredible holocaust survivors who are with us this morning.
Following the Minister’s meeting with the French Trade Minister Olivier Becht yesterday, does he agree that there is a new mood of optimism around the Franco-British bilateral relationship, and that the planned summit in the new year provides a really good moment to think about deepening our ties of co-operation, especially on trade and energy security, and increasing people-to-people contact?
Greg Hands
I join my right hon. Friend in commending you, Mr Speaker, for the commemoration earlier today. My right hon. Friend is quite right that I had a very good meeting with Olivier Becht yesterday. It lasted a full hour, online, and we covered an enormous range of issues, including preparations for the UK-France summit coming up early next year. That will be a great opportunity for us to build on that relationship.
As the Minister responsible for exports—my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie)—said, trade with the EU is going back up. That is great news and we need to make sure that the trading relationship with France—we are the third largest investor in France and that is a really important relationship —continues to flourish. I know that my right hon. Friend, as chair of the all-party group for France, will take a keen and continuing interest in that.
Chinese Consul General: Attack on Protesters in Manchester
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to update the House on the investigation into the Chinese consul general’s attack on protesters in Manchester.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
As Members of the House will be aware, the Foreign Secretary laid a written ministerial statement yesterday to update the House on actions taken following the incident that occurred outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester on 16 October. I was as shocked as all Members of the House to see the disturbing social media footage of violence there that day. The right of free expression—the right to protest peacefully, the right to speaks one’s mind free from the fear or threat of violence—is an absolutely fundamental part of our democratic life in the UK.
In our immediate response, the Foreign Secretary summoned China’s acting ambassador—the most senior Chinese diplomat who was in the UK that day—to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to demand an explanation for the incident. His Majesty’s ambassador in Beijing also sought a further explanation from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Following the incident, Greater Manchester police initiated an investigation. As part of that investigation, the police requested that the FCDO approach the Chinese Government to ask them to waive immunity of the Chinese consul general and five of his staff to enable interviews to take place. We informed the Chinese embassy of that request and set yesterday as the deadline, making it clear that we expected it to take action.
Indeed, we have been clear with China from the outset that we would take firm action should the police determine that there was a need to interview officials regarding their involvement in the incident. We rightly expect the highest standard of behaviour from all foreign diplomats and consular staff in the UK regardless of their privileges and immunities.
In response to our request, the Chinese embassy, acting on instruction from Beijing, notified His Majesty’s Government earlier this week that it had removed the consul general from the UK. The embassy also notified us that five other staff identified for interview from the incident by Greater Manchester police have either now left or are about to leave the UK. I wish to put on record my thanks for the professionalism shown by Greater Manchester police, particularly given the complexities of dealing with this case.
As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, we are disappointed that these individuals will not be interviewed. It is therefore right that those identified by the police as involved in the disgraceful scenes in Manchester are no longer, or will shortly cease to be, consular staff accredited to the UK. Throughout this process, we have been clear that, in the UK, we adhere to the rule of law, follow due process and respect the operational independence of our police.
Our firm diplomacy and our actions demonstrate the seriousness with which we took this incident, and the correct outcome has now been reached. The UK will always use our diplomacy to demonstrate the importance of abiding by the rule of law, and we expect others to do the same.
Alicia Kearns
Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker, and let me put on record how disappointed I am that the Government felt that a written ministerial statement was sufficient to update the House on this issue.
The consul general and five others brutalised a refugee on British soil, and rather than being expelled or prosecuted, they have been allowed to slip off—to flee like cowards—which makes their guilt even more evident. By giving them a week’s notice, which goes far beyond the Vienna convention on consular relations, we have essentially denied Bob Chan any sense of justice. I am afraid that, at this point, the Government are being opaque, and I cannot identify any meaningful action that they have taken beyond giving the diplomats notice to flee the country, and essentially allowing the Chinese Communist party to claim now that it was simply the end of their term in Britain: they were not removed, they were not expelled, it was just time for him to leave our country.
I am not asking the Government to be tough for toughness’ sake. Justice is needed to deter future action and to ensure that we stand by the refugees who come to this country for safety. I ask the Minister please to reassure refugees in our country that we will not stand for transnational repression, and that we will take action by declaring those individuals who have fled personae non gratae so that they can never return to British soil again and potentially brutalise people or undermine the values that we have in this country.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I said in my statement and as was said in our conversations with the Chinese embassy, in London and indeed at post—our ambassador’s conversations with the Chinese Government in Beijing—we made it very clear that the Chinese diplomats’ behaviour was completely unacceptable, but because, as I have said, we believe in the operational independence of the police, we asked for Greater Manchester police to be allowed to investigate the matter, and asked for the Chinese to co-operate fully with the police investigation. The diplomatic frameworks that exist for that very purpose were observed, and we are content with the outcome that the Chinese direction from Beijing was to bring its people home and remove them from being accredited members of the UK diplomatic corps.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I thank the chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), for the urgent question, and for her tireless work on this issue to date. We have heard of government by press release, but I think we now have government by urgent question. This is the third urgent question with the third Minister and the third slightly different version of events, and the impression is of dither and delay.
Of course Labour Members believe that the right of free expression, including the right to protest and to speak one’s mind, is essential to our democratic way of life, and we thank Greater Manchester police for their intense efforts in this regard. However, I have three brief questions to ask the Minister. First, will the officials removed by the Chinese Government be declared personae non gratae, to send a clear message about our dissatisfaction with their unwillingness to engage with the investigation? Secondly, has there has been concerted engagement with international partners about the episode to prevent similar occurrences in New York, Canberra, Amsterdam or Ottawa? Finally, will there be fresh and concerted cross-Whitehall engagement to ensure that pro-democracy activists and Hongkongers are given the protection that they deserve here in the UK? Members of this House have spoken with one voice and I should like to hear a robust response from the Government.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, the Vienna convention on consular relations allows states to withdraw members of a consular post at any point, and we were clear that we were asking the Chinese either to waive immunity or to do that. They have chosen that route. That is how the framework is set out. We are disappointed that these individuals will therefore not be interviewed, but it is absolutely right that those responsible will shortly be getting on to a plane and leaving the UK.
As the hon. Lady will know, issues across posts are discussed regularly and forcefully, and the Foreign Secretary has ensured that all our embassies are fully up to date on his very clear directions. As I have said, I know all of us in the House agree that we value that freedom of expression—that freedom to protest peacefully—and, indeed, ask others around the world to demonstrate it as well. We will continue to ensure that our police forces are able to do what they need to do, independent of Government direction. This is a framework of which we are all extremely proud, and often, wherever we are in the world, other countries note and are impressed by our ability to maintain it. We will continue to protect the rights of all who wish to demonstrate and share their views peacefully to do so.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I concur with everything the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), said. There was clear video evidence of outrageous violence by Chinese nationals, and the consul general admitted it. It is clear that the Government should have expelled the diplomats without having to wait for a police investigation. Any other person in this country guilty of such crimes would have been arrested at that stage. It is a clear admission of guilt that they have now scuttled off into the night back to China. At the very least, the Government must now retrospectively say that they are personae non gratae.
Will the Minister invite the Chinese ambassador, without coffee and biscuits, for a serious lesson on what freedom of expression actually means in this country? Will he say that when China eventually builds its new embassy it will allow free and peaceful demonstration outside, because that is what we do in this country, and that we will not tolerate intimidation of the many Hong Kong British overseas nationals coming to this country who are still at risk of the tentacles of the Chinese Communist Government using these sorts of bully boy tactics?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I note the very colourful description in my hon. Friend’s request. I am pleased to update him with the fact that, in my new post, I have been able to meet the Chinese ambassador. Just last week, I went to pay my condolences on the death of President Zemin. I was able to sit and have a short conversation with the ambassador, during which I raised these issues, which at the time were ongoing. We will continue to meet, and I note the request for less of a welcome than perhaps one might otherwise give. It is really important to maintain those conversations and, as my hon. Friend says, ensure that every embassy accredited to the UK understands our values and our rights. All those who wish to demonstrate peacefully to raise concerns on any matter should be free to do so. We will continue to stand up to ensure that everyone across the UK understands that, and we will continue to support our police to allow that to happen.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), for forcing the Government to the Dispatch Box to address this issue.
The Minister and others are right about the right to protest—that must be protected. We cannot allow the creep-in of authoritarian tactics here. China removing the six individuals is not a success story for the UK. Justice has not been served. Does the Minister agree that the Chinese Communist party’s actions show wilful disregard for the rule of law and the UK’s diplomatic authority? Criminal investigations should have been progressed. The instigators of Bob Chan’s assault will not now be held to account. The UK Government cannot think that that is acceptable. Does the Minister regret that? The UK Government have failed to act strategically on China while our allies and partners, including the US and Germany, have done so. The UK has not even published the long-promised strategy on China. When will that now be progressed?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I note the hon. Gentleman’s request on the China strategy. I am afraid that I cannot provide any more detail at the moment—it is not in my purview to do so—but we continue to work very closely on it. He will have heard the Prime Minister, in his Guildhall speech a few weeks ago, set out very clearly what he described as “robust pragmatism”. We will be hearing further on that.
On this particular issue, it is really important to be clear that once the Greater Manchester police confirmed, after consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, that it was satisfied that the level of injuries of one of the reported victims was consistent with a section 39 assault, we followed through with the action I set out. We gave the Chinese Government one week to comply with the request to waive privileges and immunities, so that the police could interview those involved and urge them to co-operate fully. They decided to use the diplomatic tools available to them to send their people home.
Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I was unaware until this incident that there was even a Chinese Government consulate in Manchester. May I suggest that we conduct a review into where all the consuls are? There are a number of embassies outside London. We should ensure that they all have a police liaison officer so that everyone understands their duties and responsibilities here in the United Kingdom.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I will take that point away and discuss it with the team. Just as we have in many countries, there are consulates general not only at the main embassy but across large areas. Thinking of our own, the One HMG programme was done to help us bring together our trade and agriculture experts and those working in-country. He is quite right that we see consulates general across the UK for many embassies that are accredited to the Court of St James’s. I will take that point away.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I join the Minister and the Opposition Front Bencher in praising Greater Manchester police. We should have not seen scenes such as that in our great city. I am disappointed that this issue has had to be raised as an urgent question, because the Foreign Secretary was making a statement on his Department’s media channel about it last night. I am concerned that he is not here.
The Minister summed it up: these diplomats are accredited, so what happens when they are replaced in the consulate of Manchester? Will those officials have a semblance of the common good and allow encounter and dialogue, or will they be replaced with further state-sponsored thugs?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The Chinese embassy and Beijing will no doubt send a new consul general in due course. We will be clear, as we always are with all those who come to serve in their embassies in the UK, that we expect the highest standards from all staff. That will continue to be the case.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
China, of course, always displays its absolute contempt when it identifies weakness amongst its opponents and counter- parties, doesn’t it?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The Foreign Secretary was clear with the Chinese embassy, and we have followed through. I am pleased that the outcome is that those whom Greater Manchester police identified as involved have been sent home by Beijing.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I concur with the congratulations to Greater Manchester police on their swift action to support the refugee in this case. I agree, very unusually, with the remarks of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) about the consequences of, quite frankly, a lacklustre Government response. What do the Government think will be the response from China to this poor display?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I think the whole House agrees that Greater Manchester police behaved incredibly well through what was a difficult situation. As we have discussed, the Vienna convention on consular relations sets out clearly the rules of the road between all our diplomats across the world. We have always and will continue to expect the highest standards of behaviour and protocols here in the UK. We will reiterate that in due course.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Those exercising their freedoms here in the UK should never feel threatened or intimidated by the actions of foreign states. Can the Minister confirm how she is working with ministerial colleagues and Government agencies to establish and address other threats to freedom of expression by foreign actors? Could she make particular reference to concerns about Confucius Institutes, which have been raised in this place a number of times?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank my hon. Friend for all her work as the Prime Minister’s envoy on freedom of religion or belief. Hers is an incredibly important voice that reaches across the world, setting out the UK’s absolute clarity on our values. We will continue to do that. I hope she will be pleased to see the human rights report published, as promised, at the beginning of the week. We continue set out how the UK is leading on that. We continue to look across the piece at all centres. The Prime Minister has set out more work for us to do to ensure that all those who are here under diplomatic authority follow the rules of the road that we set out clearly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the Minister agree that this is only one incident in a pattern of behaviour by the Chinese Communist party, as others have referred to? The assaults on British journalists, the crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong and the genocidal activities taking place in Xinjiang province warrant greater international condemnation and action. Just yesterday, China attempted to stop Iran being ousted from the UN body tasked with empowering women’s rights. That is what China does, and everybody is a target. Does she plan to raise this with her Chinese counterpart? Will accountability be applied on every occasion that the United Kingdom has to highlight issues of abuse by the Chinese Communist party?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Gentleman continues to be a great champion for those oppressed in many parts of the world. We now have a robust and active sanctions regime, and we use it firmly to make clear our views on those breaching it through either corruption or human rights aggressions where we can identify those. We have a number of sanctions on Chinese entities and individuals exactly along those lines, and I will be happy to write to him with more details about them, if that would be useful.
Alicia Kearns
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the written ministerial statement laid yesterday by the Foreign Secretary, the House was informed that the Chinese Communist party was given one week to waive immunity for those whom the police wanted to speak to. That deadline passed last night, but the Minister has just stated from the Dispatch Box that two Chinese consul staff remain in the UK and will leave shortly. Given that the deadline has passed and no action has been taken by the Government, may I seek your guidance on whether the House was misled when it was informed that a deadline had been set, or was it merely a rhetorical deadline?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The consul general left the UK first. Of the remaining five, I do not have precise numbers on the last few—I am not sure whether it is two or three. We are waiting on an update from the Chinese embassy later today that all of those five have left the UK.
Mr Speaker
We may even come back to this on Monday, then, just for clarification.
Business of the House
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 19 December will include:
Monday 19 December—Second Reading of the Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 20 December—Debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. The subject for the debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 20 December and return on Monday 9 January.
The provisional business for the week commencing 9 January includes:
Monday 9 January—Second Reading of the Procurement Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 10 January—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction) Bill, followed by a general debate on a subject to be confirmed. On that point, I am aware that yesterday we had to pull a debate on Ukraine because of the Home Secretary’s statement. Our solidarity with the people of Ukraine remains unwavering. I will be listening, as always, to suggestions from colleagues on what the topic of that future debate should be.
Wednesday 11 January—Opposition day (11th allotted day). Debate in the name of the official Opposition on a subject to be announced.
Thursday 12 January—Debate on a motion on the current situation in Iran and the treatment of protestors, followed by a general debate on landfill tax fraud. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 13 January—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 16 January includes:
Monday 16 January—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Online Safety Bill. The other business will be announced in the usual way.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the business, and may I start by wishing her and you, Mr Speaker, as well as all House staff, Members and their staff a very merry Christmas? Mr Speaker, did you know that 1843 was a very special year for the Victorian revival of Christmas? As well as the world’s first Christmas cards, it also gave us one of Britain’s best-loved novels, “A Christmas Carol”, a beautiful story of the transformation of an unscrupulous boss who treats working people poorly, visited by three ghosts putting him on a path to redemption. Even Christmas miracles can only go so far, so I am not expecting the Government to follow suit, but let us give it a try anyway.
I will start with a reflective visit from the ghost of Christmas past. After 12 years of Tory failure, what have they actually achieved? What will they be remembered for in 30, 40 or 50 Christmases’ time? This country feels broken. Since 2010, national debt has soared. That was before the pandemic and Ukraine. Child poverty, crime and homelessness—up. The pound, healthy life expectancy and standards in public life—down. Labour’s Sure Start centres, libraries and football pitches across the country—closed. Where in the future business is a plan to fix all that? The British people deserve better.
Successive Tory Prime Ministers have said they would fix the crisis in social care. Most famously, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) on the steps of Downing Street promised to fix it “once and for all”. What happened to that plan? The sector is in crisis this Christmas. Do the Government have a plan? If so, will a Minister come to the House and answer Members’ important questions? On other health policy there is failure too. We were told that the Government’s 10-year plan for dementia would be published this year. Where is it?
Things do not get better with a visit from the ghost of Christmas present. We have a Tory cost of living crisis made in Downing Street and more than a decade of damage to our public services, leaving backlog Britain at breaking point, with backlogs in the courts and a fraction of asylum claims dealt with each year, costing the taxpayer millions in hotel costs and letting vulnerable people down. As for the NHS, we are heading into winter with more people waiting for treatment than at any time in history, and they are waiting longer than ever. Nothing is working and it is on the Government. They could be training 7,500 more doctors and 10,000 more nurses, paid for by abolishing the non-dom tax break. That is Labour’s plan; where is the Government’s? Where in the future business is the Bill to fix the NHS?
Then we have the ghost of Christmas yet to come. With the Tories, we are set for weaker economic growth, bigger backlogs and worsening crises, but the lesson from the story is that it does not have to be this way. There is hope. I am sad to say—actually, no I am not, but I will say it anyway—that it is not “PM4PM”. The alternative choice is a Keir Starmer-led Labour Government with an ambitious, bold, practical legislative agenda and a plan that speaks to people’s priorities, not a Government picking up Bills, waving them around for a bit and then dropping them when their Back Benchers do not like them anymore. We have housing targets gone, the Schools Bill gone, and the transport Bill missing in action.
Although I welcome the statement following business questions on the contaminated blood scandal, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) has been pushing for it since March. Given that one victim dies every four days, may I ask the Leader of the House to push for more regular updates next year?
I was glad to hear the Leader of the House say recently that she will be sticking around to fight the next general election. She knows that since she was appointed to the role, I have enjoyed our exchanges, and I will enjoy them even more when we swap places. As we look to 2023, can I ask her to make a new year’s resolution to end Government disdain for Parliament? Will the Government treat Members and our constituents with respect and answer written parliamentary questions and correspondence on time? Will they provide comprehensive copies of the correct ministerial statements to you, Mr Speaker, and to Opposition Front Benchers? Will they get their act together and stop dropping Bills and promises to voters? Whether the Government can muster the courage to call a general election next year, or we have to wait until 2024, Labour is ready. We have a plan, and we are ready to win. Happy new year.
Penny Mordaunt
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for presiding over the minute’s silence we had earlier today. It was an historic moment to mark the 80th anniversary of the first time the House heard about what we now know as the holocaust. Because of that, I hope you will allow me just to put the names of the survivors who joined us today on record. Thank you to Mala Tribich MBE, Steven Frank BEM, Dr Alfred Garwood, John Hajdu MBE, Joan Salter MBE, Dr Martin Stern MBE and Yvonne Bernstein. I also thank the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for their work. I am sure all hon. Members would concur with that.
We had two important visits this week, from His Majesty the King and, more significantly, Santa. I had a letter from the children in the nursery, who were keen for me to put on record our thanks to Santa for visiting them this Christmas and to assure them that we will not have to put minimum service standards into legislation for Santa and his elves; they will be working over Christmas. I also put on record my thanks to the staff of the House, who have done an incredible job this autumn term with some important events. I wish them all a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
I turn to the hon. Lady’s points. On the infected blood inquiry, I am pleased that more information has come forward. We need to keep people informed. I set up the compensation study and it is incredibly important that those interim payments are made and that people are fully compensated for the suffering they have had to endure.
I knew that the hon. Lady would make a Christmas-themed statement today, and she never disappoints. She talked about the ghost of Christmas past, but if it appeared and took us back to pre-2010, we would discover some interesting things. For example, the unemployment rate, which is now 3.5%, was consistently 8% under Labour. During the entire period that the Conservatives have been in coalition or full Administration, council tax has gone up by 36%; in the same timeframe under Labour, it went up by 110%. On that trend, people would be paying £1,000 extra on their council tax bills today.
We have reduced fuel duty by 7.5%; Labour put it up by 42%. If that trend had continued, it would be 81p per litre. We now have 10% more good or outstanding schools; in Labour’s Wales, teaching numbers have fallen by 10%. We also know that in Wales, where Labour is in Government, waiting lists are five times higher than in England. The Defence budget is now in balance, but when we came into office in 2010, the deficit, including the equipment programme, was £71 billion, thanks to Labour—twice the size of the Defence budget.
That is why, although we have faced tough times and there are tough times ahead this winter, I thank my lucky stars that this Government are leading the country through them, because Labour’s record speaks volumes about its inability to do that. Every time the Conservatives come to power, our country is improved; every time Labour comes to power, the reverse is true. I sincerely hope that when the ghost of Christmas present visits us, it will be to celebrate a fifth historic term for a Conservative Administration. Happy Christmas, everyone.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
A very happy Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and the staff of the House. The main post office in Tunbridge Wells has been closed since 30 November and has missed the whole Christmas period because of a squabble about who is responsible for repairs to the building. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to intervene with the Post Office to stop inconveniencing my constituents in that way, reopen the post office and sort out the dispute without detriment to my constituents?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the issue that my right hon. Friend raises; it sounds as though some heads need knocking together. As Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions are not until 17 January, I shall write to the Department on his behalf and ask the Secretary of State to look at the matter urgently.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
First, may I pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who is unable to be here, due to family circumstances?
I wish everyone a merry Christmas, and I hope everyone has a guid new year—if Hansard do not know how to spell “guid” by noo, I am happy to help with the spelling at some other point. I also echo the Leader of the House’s statement on the holocaust survivors who were able to join us today. The year before 1942, my home town was obliterated by national socialism, in the worst aerial bombardment suffered in these islands during the second world war. My constituency stands in solidarity, as I am sure the entire House does, with those across Europe who survived the holocaust under national socialism and with those whose memories we commemorated today.
Becoming Chief Whip for the SNP—and then suddenly and very briefly shadow Leader of the House—has made it a bit of a strange week, but I am delighted to take up my new position. I was also delighted that everyone on the Opposition side of the House gave us some hope for 2023, when they decided to say no to probably one of the worst ten-minute rule Bills that this House has ever seen. It was a quite hideous and horrendous piece of proposed legislation, supported by some senior Members on the Government’s Back Benches. I am glad that the Government at least gave us a bit of hope by making sure that the payroll did not turn up to vote for it, so we are grateful for that.
As a child of the ’70s, I have to say that there is a whiff of Christmas past this year. We are seeing nurses out on strike across the road at St Thomas’s—I wish them well, as I am sure most Members in the House do, with their deliberations and their demands for improvements. At least in Scotland we do not have that dispute; the Scottish Government have settled it, and we are moving forward in the hope that we can build an NHS fit for the future.
I wish all Members and staff a very merry Christmas and a guid new year. In the forthcoming period, if Scotland cannot leave the voluntary Union, I wonder whether the Leader of the House will be able to tell us, if England decides to leave the Union—if it is voluntary—what opportunity there will be for it to do so. The Government clearly do not want to discuss Scotland’s position, which we raised yesterday, and which the Government voted against.
Given that there is a whiff of the ’70s, I am glad that we have a Scottish Parliament to stand up for Scotland, to defend the weakest in our society and to make sure that, as we head into the deepest element of this cost of living crisis, there is hope for the new year at least in Scotland. We on the SNP Benches will continue to be Scotland’s voice and to demand the right to national self-determination.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman and send my good wishes to his colleague, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock)—I am sorry not to be able to wish her a good Christmas in person.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the most vulnerable in society. This Government have not just acted to protect people this winter by providing cost of living payments and extra money to the Scottish Government to enable those to happen, but we have increased benefits in line with inflation—that is our record, as well as introducing the triple lock. If the Scottish Government were so aggrieved, the hon. Gentleman needs to explain why they did not take up their powers on controlling welfare payments earlier, as they could have done. They were very happy to leave things with the UK Government for longer than they needed to.
The hon. Gentleman did not actually mention Scottish independence until the very last moment in his speech. I thought he might be setting a record by talking about other issues, but he let himself down at the last moment. Normally, I am pretty brutal with his colleague, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, who is not here today. However, in the Christmas spirit, I will not just outline all the rational arguments that I do every week for why we are better together as the United Kingdom—the £2,000 tax dividend; the strength of our defence and security; our global reach; and our ability to offer support in a crisis situation, whether it is cost of living issues or any help needed, for example, with the ongoing situation in Shetland, where His Majesty’s armed forces are available to step up and help. Sometimes we forget that the arguments for the Union are ones that appeal not just in the head but to the heart. The reason so many people in this place object to the SNP’s obsession with independence is that it will rip apart a family of nations and the families that live in those nations. That is my Christmas message to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues this year.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
All this year, Hindus across the world have been celebrating Pramukh Swami Maharaj’s birth centenary. That culminates with a festival that begins today in Ahmedabad, where, literally, millions of Hindus will gather, culminating in the opening of a new mandir. Thousands of our constituents will be visiting, so, as we celebrate Christmas, will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing those travelling to India a very successful festival? Can we have a debate in the new year on the contribution made by Pramukh Swami Maharaj in building more than 1,100 temples across the world, so that Hindus can celebrate their religion?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for providing me the opportunity to wish all those travelling for that festival well, and all his constituents a very merry Christmas. He will know that there is an opportunity for a debate in the new year, as announced in the forthcoming business, and I have heard his bid for that today.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I have a little Christmas advertisement on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee. We are very much open for business. We welcome applications from Back-Bench Members for debates in Westminster Hall on Tuesdays and Thursdays and here in the Chamber usually on Thursday afternoons. The Clerks to the Committee are situated in the Table Office and are very happy to assist and advise Members on how to apply for debates and provide them with application forms. Applications are expected to be cross-party and have support from a significant number of Members.
The debate on Tuesday on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment will be led by my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee.
Following the minute’s silence this morning to commemorate the recognition of the holocaust, may I give advance notice that we have an application on the stocks for a debate to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day, which we would like to be aired on 26 January, the day before Holocaust Memorial Day itself.
Mr Speaker, I wish you, Members across the House and every member of staff the very best for the Christmas season and all the very best for 2023.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for all the work that he has done over the past year to facilitate the Backbench Business Committee. I endorse his advert for people to come forward with debates and also to ensure that those debates are well-attended and lively. I know that many organisations outside this House will want to see us debating the issues that they care about, and he provides us with an excellent service in doing that.
I thank him also for notice of the topic on 26 January. I look forward to hearing the issues that people want to raise next week, on 20 December. I also look forward to hearing the announcement of the topic for the debate on the first Thursday back, on 12 January.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I very much welcome the debate on 12 January on the situation in Iran, but can we also have a debate in Government time on what more we can do to protect the rights of women around the world? Yesterday, the United Nations sent a very strong message to Iran by expelling its representatives from the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Will my right hon. Friend join the United Nations in sending a strong message that a regime that brutally represses women and girls and then hangs in public young men who stand up for them has no place on any committee in any country anywhere in the world?
Penny Mordaunt
As I said in my opening remarks, we will be having a debate on Iran, but let me thank my hon. Friend for providing the opportunity, not just for me, but for the whole House, to say very clearly that, although the House may not be sitting over the Christmas period, all Members will have their eyes on what is happening to protesters and to those who are currently in detention. The world is watching and it will continue to do so, and we will continue to shine a spotlight on what is happening in Iran.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, may I start by wishing you and all the House staff a very happy Christmas? I also wish to thank you for holding the minute’s silence to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the notification of the holocaust to our predecessors—that was very moving.
We are seeing a flatlining in life expectancy. In my constituency and in other areas of the north, our life expectancy is reducing. We are also seeing an increase in health inequalities. Dementia is now the leading cause of death. As a former public health consultant and chair of a trust, I was proud of the work the previous Labour Government did to reduce those inequalities and to be the first to have a dementia strategy. Will the Leader of the House agree to have a debate in the new year on the health of our nation and, in particular, on how we are going to build back fairer, which I understand was a commitment of the previous Government earlier this year?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising a matter of concern to every Member in this House. Clearly, there is a massive catch-up job to be done, not just on the waiting lists that we are cracking through, but on ensuring that people are mentally well and dentally fit—all those things that they may have missed out on, particularly during the pandemic. I shall certainly make sure that the Health Secretary has heard her request.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Good morning, Mr Speaker. May I take the opportunity to wish one and all a happy Christmas? Following the letter sent to the Prime Minister in November by the South Yorkshire police and crime commissioner urging the Government not to build any more so-called “smart motorways”, which were introduced in 2006 by the Labour party, and the detailed witness testimonies and the Select Committee on Transport reports on the same issue, may I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend the Leader of the House whether she will allow Government time for a debate on the future of smart motorways across the UK?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The next Transport questions are on 19 January, but, as that is a little time away, I will write to the Secretary of State to ask him to update my hon. Friend on the progress of analysing the safety data from the roll-out of smart motorways, and to keep him and his office informed.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
May I, too, pay respect to the survivors of the holocaust who came to Parliament this morning? Although I was not alive at the time, the shame will never leave me that these atrocities were committed by the country of my origin.
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as I ask this question. The ban on no-fault evictions is long overdue and I am pleased that the Government are committed to ending them. But the illegal eviction law must be reformed at the same time, otherwise we risk frustrated landlords taking unjustified actions to evict their tenants via that way. The current law on illegal evictions is incredibly difficult to understand and is rarely enforced. It needs to change at the same time and I hope that the Government will engage with the lawyers and organisations that are raising this concern. In the meantime, will the Leader of the House indicate when we can expect the renters’ reform Bill, which was promised by the end of the year?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady will know that I am going to say that future business will be announced in the usual way, but I know that this is a priority for the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Levelling-up questions will be the first questions session of the new year, when I encourage her to raise that point directly with the Secretary of State.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
My constituent Jenny Green, president of the RAF Widows’ Association, lost her husband Group Captain William Green in a Tornado crash over the North sea in 1990. The crash was attributed to negligence, despite guidelines stating clearly that this should only be
“where there is no doubt whatsoever”.
That wording was further strengthened in 1994. This is obviously a matter of great concern to my constituent, so may we have a debate on the process of attributing negligence in tragic incidents such as this?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for continuing to raise this matter. He will know that when the Ministry of Defence has looked at this and other issues, it has a judgment to make about whether a future inquiry would be in the public interest. The difficulty is, of course, that this is not necessarily a public interest, but a very private interest for family members and others involved. I will write to the Department on his behalf and ask it to explore other ways in which perhaps there could be some closure for that family.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Season’s greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and all members of staff of the House. On today’s nurses’ action, which has been taken most reluctantly, I want to say that two of the closest members of my family were gravely ill for weeks in Yorkshire hospitals, and I had an accident and almost lost the use of my leg, which was recovered thanks to the skill of the staff. The nurses looked after all three of us, as they do tens of thousands of other patients every day. They do not ask for anything, except that we leave that hospital better than we came in. They stand by us; it is time we stood by them. The Leader of the House no doubt believes she is an extremely persuasive person, and no doubt she is, so can she not, over the weekend, persuade the Prime Minister to make a statement on Monday or Tuesday—since there is another action on Tuesday—that he will resolve the nurses’ case to their satisfaction so that we can have a Christmas where the NHS begins to rebuild?
Penny Mordaunt
I know every Member of this House will have similar stories to the ones the hon. Gentleman alludes to. We owe a huge amount to our healthcare professionals and all those who supported him. He knows that an inflation-matching pay increase for all public sector workers, which would be around 11%, would cost £28 billion, about £1,000 per household. What we must do to keep our NHS strong and reward those who work in it is to get our economy going and control inflation, and that is what this Government are focused on.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Town centres are at the heart of our communities, and yesterday evening Conservative-controlled Rugby Borough Council adopted an ambitious long-term strategy for the regeneration of Rugby town centre, bringing together private and public sector investment to create a vibrant destination for leisure and retail as well as increasing amounts of residential accommodation. Might we have a debate on the supporting role that Government can play in enabling the regeneration of our town centres up and down the country?
Penny Mordaunt
As a former high streets Minister, I was excited to hear what Rugby is doing. My hon. Friend will know we have invested £2.4 billion in town deals and more than £830 million in future high streets funding. Obviously, the nearly £5 billion in levelling-up funding will be invested in town centres and high streets too. It is also critical that we share good practice, so I hope that Rugby council will put what it has done on the high streets website in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities so that others can learn from its good practice.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Many people across the UK face Christmas misery as online shopping deliveries have been delayed or lost by delivery firm Evri. After expressing concerns about this company on social media, I have been inundated with stories of late or lost parcels, no or poor customer service, drivers earning less than the national living wage, drivers’ pay being withheld and a pathetic petrol allowance that is insufficient to cover increased fuel charges. This is a classic case of corporate greed over staff welfare and customer service. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement regarding this company?
Penny Mordaunt
I am shocked to hear that from the hon. Lady and I will immediately ask the Business Secretary to get one of his Ministers to look into it, as people are waiting on deliveries, particularly over the Christmas period. The message to companies that want to short-change their workers and their customers is that not only will they lose their workforce and their customers, but she will also give them a spanking on the Floor of this House.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
Community pharmacies play a vital role in our communities, and across the Bolsover constituency. Not only do they provide important medical services, but they also provide somewhere for the elderly to go in order to discuss their condition. Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the importance of independent community pharmacies, and the vital role they play in promoting community cohesion and supporting residents in rural towns and villages?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for providing me with the opportunity also to thank the healthcare professionals who work in that sector. We do not have to convince the Prime Minister of what my hon. Friend has said, as he is very aware of the important role that community pharmacies play. Such places play a vital role in ensuring that people stay fit and healthy over the winter months, and I encourage my hon. Friend to raise the issue again at Health and Social Care questions on 24 January.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Today is the fifth day this month that members of the Communication Workers Union are taking industrial action at Royal Mail. Having spoken to a number of superb postal workers in my constituency, I have real concerns about the way the company is being run. It has gone from making a huge profit to losing hundreds of millions of pounds in 12 months. It has prioritised parcels over letter delivery, and it now wants to drop the universal service obligation. If the future of the Royal Mail is for it to become a gig economy courier company, that will have huge implications for the quality of service and the terms and conditions of postal workers. That is something on which this House ought to have an opinion, so may we have a debate about the future of Royal Mail?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman will know that questions to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are not until the second week we are back, so I will write to the Secretary of State on his behalf to ensure that he has heard those concerns.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
May I wish you, Mr Speaker, your staff, and all Members a very happy Christmas?
With the current cost of living pressures and freezing weather conditions, this Christmas will be busier than ever for our wonderful charities, social enterprises and voluntary and community sector organisations. I am sure we all want to thank them for the incredible work they do. In my constituency, hundreds of organisations will be going the extra mile this year. Those include YMCA North Staffordshire, Stoke city community trust, the Hubb Foundation, Saltbox, Citizens Advice, Better Together community support group, Sutton Trust community group, Stoke Samaritans, Caudwell Children, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust Charity, Savana, and Helping Angels, as well as vast numbers of faith charities that work to help those most in need. I can only highlight a few, but I enormously appreciate them all. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking those wonderful organisations, and will she make parliamentary time available to debate the creation of a community wealth fund from the dormant assets funding?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the incredible work that voluntary and social organisations do every day, and particularly at this time of the year. She will know that the Government are considering the use of dormant assets for community wealth funds, following a consultation run earlier this year. That response from the Government is due out in the new year, and may well coincide with 26 January and the next questions to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
A constituent of mine received a penalty charge notice from a private car parking company called Smart Parking, which stated that because he had not paid a measly £1 fee he was to pay a £60 fine. He did pay the fee, and he challenged the fine, which has now risen to £100. He took it all the way to the ombudsman, which ruled against him due to a lack of evidence. I have asked the company whether it carried out any investigation involving CCTV or balance on the meter, without a satisfactory reply. Such complaints seem to be a widespread problem, according to many reviews on Trustpilot, so may we have a debate on private parking regulation?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the difficulties of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. If he wants to give me further details of the concerns about that company, I will write on his behalf to the Secretary of State and make sure that the issue is flagged with him.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
On 5 January 1983, Police Constables Angela Bradley, Gordon Connolly and Colin Morrison tragically died while attempting to rescue a man off the Blackpool coast. Their loss is felt to this day in my constituency and by the Lancashire police force. A memorial service to mark the 40th anniversary of the tragedy will take place next month. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to their tremendous bravery? Will she find time for a debate in which hon. Members can highlight the exceptional contribution that police officers make in our communities?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter and for getting those brave individuals’ names into today’s Hansard. I will certainly ensure that the matter is raised with the Home Office and that we consider how we can further mark their incredible service and sacrifice. This is a week in which we have all been very aware of the tragedy of people drowning in cold water.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Perhaps we could have a debate on the accurate use of Charles Dickens as a political metaphor. Much as I hate to contradict my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and the Leader of the House, Ebenezer Scrooge was visited by four ghosts. The first was the ghost of Jacob Marley, who was condemned to roam the earth, dragging chains behind him as a penance for his meanness during life. After the Government’s miserliness in refusing even to meet nurses to discuss a pay increase, may I remind the Leader of the House of the message of Jacob Marley, namely that redemption is available? Does she agree that the Government ought to meet the nurses to discuss a decent pay rise before Christmas?
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker—and, as Tiny Tim said,
“God bless Us, Every One!”
Penny Mordaunt
As a Portsmouth MP, I am delighted that Charles Dickens is featuring so heavily in this business question, but I repeat the answer that I gave earlier. We value our NHS staff tremendously. The Minister who has been primarily concerned with the matter—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield)—is a nurse. We understand the incredible job that nurses do very well, but we also have to ensure that we are able to control inflation and that pay rises in the public sector are affordable.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Transport in South Yorkshire is devolved to our Mayor, who boasts a budget of some £225 million and an investment fund worth £900 million over 30 years. While Greater Manchester and Teesside are steaming ahead with their devolution deals, South Yorkshire is being ignored. My constituents want answers about the daily cancellations of buses between Worksop and Dinnington and the scrapping of routes to Crystal Peaks. I myself have written several letters to the Mayor on the subject, some of which I sent as long ago as September. None of them has been answered.
The one time the Mayor turned up to Rother Valley to discuss the buses, he held a meeting to which neither I nor the local councillors and parish councillors were invited. It was not even advertised on social media. I gather that only about 10 Labour activists were in attendance. Can we have a debate on how to make the South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority more accountable for the issues for which it is responsible in Rother Valley?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the difficulties my hon. Friend is having and about how his constituents are being short-changed. He mentions the budget for the mayoral combined authority; it has also received £1.6 million from the local transport authority recovery fund from April to December this year. Levelling Up questions are on 9 January and Transport questions are on 19 January, but in the meantime I shall write to both Secretaries of State to flag up my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This morning, I joined nurses—caring, professional and dedicated nurses—on the picket line. They told me that the reason they are going out on strike is the retention issues among their workforce. Staff are leaving because they simply cannot afford to work any more. They are going to agencies, which is costing the NHS even more. It is therefore crucial that the Government stop grandstanding on the issue and hiding behind the pay review body. Instead, I ask the Leader of the House to go to Cabinet and ask the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Health Secretary to come to the negotiating table now and settle this pay dispute.
Penny Mordaunt
In addition to what I have already said in this session, the Health Secretary understands that there are issues other than pay; it is about the environment and new practices that the Royal College of Nursing wants to bring in. He has said that he is very happy to discuss those matters. Pay increases have to be affordable, and we are always minded of the strength of the workforce going forward, which is why we are pleased that we have record numbers of people wanting to come into nursing.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Year on year, the number of people who lose their life to alcohol rises in this country. It has risen 7.4% in the last year—that is 2,000 more people dying from alcohol this year than in 2019. Every death is a tragedy, and it is also preventable, and yet this Government seem to have done very little, if anything at all, to tackle this public health crisis. They even fail to implement evidence-based policies, which baffles not just me but many professionals. How many more people must die before the Government accept that alcohol harm is out of control in this country? Will the Leader of the House speak to Cabinet and the Prime Minister about whether the Government will conduct an independent review of alcohol in the style of the Dame Carol Black report on drugs?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Our healthcare policy is evidence-based, and it is also important that we scale good initiatives that are taking place in the NHS—for example, alcohol screening for people who come into accident and emergency, which has had a huge impact on getting people into treatment when they need it, and the work we have done over the last five years in particular that has led to homelessness being reduced by 50%, which has wrapped the care and support that those individuals need around them. However, he raises an important matter, and I will write to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on his behalf to flag his concerns.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
A constituent of mine applied for a visa for his mother-in-law to come to the UK from Ukraine. The application was made in August, and the family has received no further updates. I have contacted the Home Office myself, only to be kept waiting for weeks and told that it cannot help without the applicant’s permission, failing to recognise that she is stuck in a war-torn country. Can we have a debate on the action that can be taken to help this lady and no doubt countless others like her and to address the failings in the Home Office?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about that case. As I advertised at the start of this session, there are opportunities for debates, and we are always keen to hear suggestions from Members. I am sure that Ukraine will be a frontrunner for that, but let us not wait for that; let us try to get his constituency case sorted today. The Home Office is providing a new service where it is possible to have a bespoke surgery with a caseworker, and my office will be in touch with his office later today to help him set that up. It is very important that we get these things sorted swiftly, and we will assist his office to do that.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, may I take this opportunity to wish you and all House staff a merry Christmas and happy Hanukkah? Last month the House of Commons Commission agreed to launch a consultation on excluding Members of Parliament charged with violent or sexual offences from the parliamentary estate. In proposing the highest possible threshold for even considering exclusion, this House risks making Parliament a less safe space to work, making things easier for perpetrators and even more intolerable for survivors of sexual violence among our community here. Will the Leader of the House meet me to discuss this matter and my concerns about the process of consultation undertaken?
Penny Mordaunt
There is a reason why we have consultations on these matters—it is so that people can express their views, and I urge the hon. Lady to contribute to that. I put this consultation forward with other members of the Commission, and it is a very important principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. Clearly, for certain charges, there would be concerns about workplace safety and so forth, but it was felt that having the point being at charge rather than arrest would be a better balance between that important principle and the potential damage to an individual who is perhaps falsely charged and has claims made against them. There is a reason why we are consulting on this. Members should respond to that and encourage their members of staff to respond. My door is open to all Members, as I am sure is the case for other members of the Commission, the shadow Leader of the House and Mr Speaker too.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House check whether Ministers are on strike? I ask because, as she knows, I have been trying to get a meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport for many months—the Secretary of State keeps changing—about the Rhondda tunnel. The Leader of the House is still very welcome to come and be dangled down my hole.
I am meant to be co-chairing, with a Minister, the programme board on creating a national strategy for acquired brain injury. I have been trying to get a meeting with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care since July. Admittedly, he was sacked in September and reappointed in October; but none the less, it has been many months and I still cannot get a meeting with even the junior Minister for social care, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). It really does feel as if they are not taking their job seriously.
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman is being rather unfair to my colleagues. I had an incident in my constituency yesterday about which I needed to contact the Health Secretary, and he responded within the hour. I am always here to facilitate such meetings. I have to say, the hon. Gentleman’s previous invitation to Rhondda did not sell it to me. It sounded like I might be taking my life in my hands, but of course I am always happy to visit his constituency.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I wish everyone a happy Christmas, especially you, Mr Speaker, and the staff who look after us in this place.
Because I get better answers at business questions than I do at Transport questions, I will update the Leader of the House on this week’s disastrous timetable changes imposed by the Department for Transport. My usual train normally goes to Charing Cross, but this morning I was forced to change at London Bridge. Imagine my shock when the entire train, more than 1,000 people, got up to change at London Bridge. These changes are inconveniencing thousands of people on their morning commute to work. Can we have a statement from the fat controller in the Department for Transport about these disastrous changes, so that we can find out when the situation will be rectified?
Penny Mordaunt
I will write to the Department for Transport today for the hon. Gentleman. Transport questions is not until 19 January, and I am sure his constituents would appreciate engagement before then.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
May I press the Leader of the House on her answer to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and ask for a statement from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on when he is actually going to level up? The round 2 levelling-up bids were submitted in early autumn, and we still do not have a date for when the announcements will be made. Two superb bids for Wythenshawe and Sale town centres, which will bring in cultural and business activity and unlock thousands of homes and hundreds of millions of pounds in investment, have been submitted by Manchester City Council and Trafford Borough Council. Can we have that statement, please?
Penny Mordaunt
I wish the hon. Gentleman good luck with his bids, which sound very exciting. I remind him that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be the first to face questions when the House returns after the Christmas recess. I hope he is in attendance.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Richard Hughes, the chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, has said that
“a series of dramatic swings in policy with five major fiscal statements delivered by three consecutive governments”
has cost taxpayers more than £40 billion in extra debt in just six months. That is £600 for every man, woman and child in the UK. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out why she believes it is acceptable for taxpayers to pay the price for Westminster’s economic incompetence?
Penny Mordaunt
We are facing very difficult times across the country and we are coming out of a pandemic where we have had unprecedented demand on the public purse. I notice that the Scottish Government will outline their Budget today, and I look forward to Audit Scotland’s commentary, when it is produced.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
As we are all getting into the Christmas spirit, can we spare a thought for my constituents who have been well and truly Scrooged by their former employer? In the summer, Orchard House Foods announced the closure of its site in my constituency, with the loss of 430 jobs. Many of those staff were expecting their redundancy and final payment on 9 December, but the night before, they received an email telling them that that would not happen. Can we have a statement from the Government on the situation at Orchard House Foods and attempt to ensure that the staff get the money as quickly as possible?
Penny Mordaunt
I am extremely sorry to hear that; it is a terrible thing for the workforce to have had to deal with, especially at this time of year. I shall write to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy this afternoon and ask it to get in touch with the hon. Lady’s office to advise on whether there is anything we can do to assist. I hope that her constituents have a good Christmas.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Home Office admits that it is working outside the 60-day service standard for family reunion applications, but the situation is actually so bad that my Syrian constituent, Ahmed, has been waiting 10 months for a decision for his family. They have already fled Syria to Istanbul, where they have been subjected to racism, and Ahmed is further worried given last month’s terrorist incident in the city. Will the Leader of the House advise us on what is being done to resolve the backlog of family reunion applications, and can my constituent’s case finally be expedited after his 10-month wait?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about that case. Every year, about 5,000 such cases are processed successfully, with those people being reunited with their families. As I said, the Home Office is now offering a one-to-one service. If the hon. Gentleman has had difficulty in accessing it, my office would be happy to facilitate that.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Last week, along with other Wirral MPs, I met headteachers representing primary schools right across Wirral. They told us of the severe financial challenges that they face. Despite the announcement in the autumn statement, they are extremely concerned about how they will be able to pay the staffing costs and heating bills, and in some instances, they simply cannot. They are facing very difficult choices. One school has even invested in a set of fleeces for the children to wear in class because there is insufficient heating in the school, as the school cannot afford it. I am extremely concerned about the evidence that I have heard. This is an incredibly serious situation. When parents drop their children off at school, they have the right to expect that children will be in schools that are warm, fully resourced and properly staffed. Can we have a debate on funding in primary schools as a matter of urgency?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about that particular case. In addition to the £5 billion in education recovery funding, we announced a further £500 million in the past few days to help schools with energy efficiency. No school should have to have the heating off, and I am very concerned to hear about the hon. Lady’s case. As a consequence, I will contact the Department for Education today and ask it to look into that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This is the last business questions of the year, and as such I take this opportunity to thank the Leader of the House for the statements of support that she has made for vulnerable religious minorities during the year. Pathway 3 of the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme has been formally open for nearly a year. It was meant to provide safe immigration routes to resettle up to 20,000 particularly vulnerable people, including religious minorities, women and members of the LGBT community. Despite numerous written and oral questions in the House of Commons and in the other place, there is little transparency on the numbers of people resettled in the UK under pathway 3. As such, will the Leader of the House make space in Government time for a debate on that matter?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I am always pleased to be able to turn a spotlight on those issues, and will continue to do so. I shall certainly raise his concerns with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office. He will know that there is sometimes a lag before we receive data; he will also know that the Prime Minister—as he said this week—wants to be very clear about the legal and safe routes for people who are still trapped in that country and who could perhaps come here and be reunited with their families. I will flag up the issue with both Departments and ask them to update the hon. Gentleman.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the Lord President of the Council and everyone else who took part in that item of business. I will pause for a second to allow changes of personnel before calling the Paymaster General to make a statement on infected blood.
Infected Blood Inquiry
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement to update the House on our preparations for the infected blood inquiry, which is expected to conclude next year.
I took over as the Minister sponsoring the inquiry on 25 October. While I have been aware of this issue for many years, as have so many of us who have been contacted by affected constituents, undertaking this role has further impressed on me its scale and gravity—not only the direct, dreadful consequences for victims, but the stigma and trauma experienced by many of those infected, by their families, and by those who care for them. I recognise that, tragically, we continue to see victims of infected blood die prematurely, and I also recognise that time is of the essence.
I commend the work of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. I am pleased to have met the co-chairs, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), and I am grateful for their insight.
In July 2017 my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) established the infected blood inquiry, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff. My predecessor as Paymaster General, the current Leader of the House, went further by commissioning a study from Sir Robert Francis KC, which is entitled “Compensation and redress for the victims of infected blood: recommendations for a framework”. The purpose of the study was clear, namely to ensure that the Government were in a position to fully consider and act on the recommendations. Sir Robert delivered it in March this year.
The Government had intended to publish a response alongside the study itself, ahead of Sir Robert’s evidence to Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry. However, as the then Paymaster General explained, the sheer complexity and wide range of factors revealed in Sir Robert’s excellent work meant that when the study was published by the Government on 7 June, it was not possible to publish a comprehensive response. The Government remained absolutely committed to using the study to prepare for the outcome of the Langstaff inquiry, and that is still the case.
On 29 July, in response to Sir Robert’s recommendations, Sir Brian Langstaff published an interim report on interim compensation. It called for an interim payment of £100,000 to be paid to all those infected and all bereaved partners currently registered on UK infected blood support schemes, and to those who registered between 29 July and the inception of any future scheme. The Government accepted that recommendation in full on 17 August. Quite rightly, a huge amount of work was undertaken across Government during the ensuing weeks to ensure that the interim payments could be exempt from tax and disregarded for the purpose of benefits, and that an appropriate delivery mechanism existed. This involved work across many Departments, and with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Interim compensation is just one part of our overall response, but it was important that we got it right.
I fully recognise that interim compensation was but one of the recommendations in Sir Robert’s study. I want to stress to the House and to the many people who have a direct and personal interest in the inquiry that those interim payments were only the start of the process, and work is ongoing in consideration of Sir Robert’s other recommendations. I am pleased that all the interim payments were made by the end of October. Sir Robert recognised in his study that the Government could not give in advance a commitment on the exact shape that redress will take. Our comprehensive response must await the final report of the infected blood inquiry. However, I want to assure those affected that this Government, which delivered a statutory inquiry and interim compensation, remain absolutely committed to our intentions in commissioning the compensation framework study. Accordingly, and recognising the need to continue to build trust with the affected community, I want to share with the House the progress we are making.
A cross-Government working group, co-ordinated by the Cabinet Office, is taking forward work strands informed by Sir Robert’s recommendations. A cross-departmental group at permanent secretary level has been convened, chaired by the Cabinet Office second permanent secretary, Sue Gray, to oversee that work. I am pleased to be able to say that Sir Robert has agreed to provide independent transparent advice to the group as work progresses. I am grateful to him for his continued input into our thinking. It is my intention over the coming months to update the House on progress and, where it is possible, to provide greater clarity on the Government’s response to Sir Robert’s recommendations prior to Sir Brian’s report being published.
In the meantime, I wish to make clear one critical answer to a recommendation posed by Sir Robert. In the first recommendation of his study, Sir Robert sets out that there is in his view a moral case for compensation to be paid. The Government accept that recommendation. There is a moral case for the payment of compensation. We have made that clear in our actions with the payment of interim compensation. I now want to make it equally clear on the Floor of the House. The Government recognise that the scheme utilised must be collaborative and sympathetic, and as user-friendly, supportive and free of stress as possible, while being consistent with the Government’s approach to protect against fraud. The Government will ensure those principles are adopted.
We have significant work to do to ensure we are ready for Sir Brian’s report. For example, Sir Robert makes detailed findings and recommendations about the delivery of the scheme, which must be worked through in discussion with the devolved Administrations. Work will need to be undertaken to ensure, in line with his recommendation, that final compensation can be made free of tax and disregarded for benefits purposes.
We know, too, that the inquiry will make recommendations in relation to bereaved parents and children. In his interim report, Sir Brian made clear his view that the moral case for their compensation is beyond doubt. Sir Brian recognised that the approach to compensating this group of people is complex and the Government must be ready to quickly address recommendations relating to them. The work in consideration of the study will ensure that the Government are prepared to act swiftly in response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s final recommendations relating to compensation.
Those infected and affected have suffered enough. Having commissioned both the inquiry and the report, the Government have further shown their commitment in our actions by the payment of interim compensation. Sir Brian and Sir Robert have both ensured that the voices of those infected and affected are front and centre of their work, and I, too, hope to be able to meet and hear from people directly affected as our work progresses. We have much to do, but I wish to assure the House—this is why I wished to be here today—that this is a priority for the Government and we will continue to progress it. I commend this statement to the House.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for the statement, which is welcome but long overdue. It is very disappointing that the Government did not find time for an oral statement in the House earlier this year when they published Sir Robert’s report. Ministers were dragged kicking and screaming to publish the report when it was leaked. That has been the pattern throughout this long painful process and it seems no different today.
Victims of the contaminated blood scandal will be watching today with great interest. Heartbreakingly, many of those infected have not lived to see today’s exchanges and the prospect of proper justice at the end of the inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) has campaigned tirelessly to raise awareness of this issue, but throughout that time more than 3,000 people have died and statistics from the Terrence Higgins Trust show that, between the start of the inquiry in July 2017 and February 2022, some 419 infected people have died.
I know personally how important this issue is and what it is like to have a loved one rely on a clean blood supply. My late mother suffered from sickle cell anaemia and because of that disease she required regular blood transfusions, which were vital. Without those blood transfusions, her life would have ended a lot earlier. I cannot imagine the pain and trauma experienced by families who were let down by basic failures of standards. The least they deserved was a prompt and thorough response from the Government. While we await the conclusion of the report and inquiry, one person dies every four days. Every day that we delay the compensation is justice denied to those people. The Minister owes it to those victims to provide real answers today.
In a recent Westminster Hall debate, the Minister’s colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), gave a frankly insulting response on the subject. He dodged the question and failed to give any certainty about the timeline for payment or the publication of the Government’s response to the report, which they have had for more than eight months. Victims will not accept empty gestures. It seems to families that the plan changes with every announcement.
Can the Minister make a promise to the House today to publish a timetable for the compensation framework for those affected by the infected blood scandal? What plans does he have to work in partnership with the infected blood community to develop the compensation framework for those affected? When will he end the Government’s silence on the other 18 recommendations that have gone ignored? How will the Minister make sure that everyone who wants to respond to the proposals has the opportunity to do so? Rather than sporadic updates without any substance, will the Minister commit to more regular updates on progress and the direction of travel on this heartbreaking issue, ahead of the report next summer?
The contaminated blood scandal had a life-changing impact on tens of thousands of victims who were promised the hope of effective treatment. It can only be right that they see the justice they deserve as soon as possible.
Jeremy Quin
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. She spoke movingly of the impact on those infected and affected. I concur that time is of the essence. I appreciate that, for family reasons, she knows how difficult it must be for the people who saw these things happening to their relatives, and how awful that process has been. I also appreciate that it is incredibly important, given all that has happened to this community, that trust is built and retained. I certainly commit that we will update the House regularly.
I cannot commit to a timetable. The reason is that I do not want to say anything in this House that we cannot meet. There is a complex series of steps to be taken and work to be done across Government and with the devolved Administrations. But I assure hon. Members that it is my intention to update the House as we make progress. We must do so in order to ensure that those infected and affected are fully apprised of the progress we are making.
I am grateful to Sir Robert and Sir Brian for how they have incorporated the views of those infected and affected in their work. My impression is that those infected and affected have appreciated the engagement they have had through the work undertaken. I hope that means that Sir Brian’s work is fully reflective of the thoughts of the community. I have said that I wish to meet members of the community. I want to ensure that our work is timely and ready to fully consider and respond to the work that Sir Brian produces during the course of next year.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I welcome the Minister coming to make an oral statement. We know that both he and the Leader of the House have been deeply involved in this issue over the months and years.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) is the most powerful advocate trying to hold Government to account and to get them to come forward. I think she will want to write—and I will happily join her—a whole series of detailed questions to the Minister, some of which he may be able to answer now. For others, he may have to say what conditions need to be met for them to be answered.
One important thing to my mind is allowing those who are not yet registered as possibly entitled to compensation to preregister, so that, when the Government come out with their response to Sir Brain Langstaff’s report, they will be able to take that up fast and make up any missing medical records, which will be a problem for some people who have been infected or affected.
The all-party parliamentary group welcomed the Government accepting the first point of Sir Robert Francis’s report about the moral case. I thank the Government for that. We are also grateful that Sir Robert is going to be invited to help Sue Gray to take forward the work she is doing. We should not underestimate the amount of work.
As and when people get compensation, are they going to be protected from the scams and so-called financial advisers who may not protect their income and use of that money? Can the Minister consider whether he can answer whether inheritance tax will not be applied to someone’s payments if the household is within the inheritance tax limit?
Jeremy Quin
I should have said this in response to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) but, in response to the Father of the House, I have greatly appreciated spending time with him and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who has been a tireless campaigner on this, as has the entire all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. I very much appreciated the time they spent with me.
I absolutely recognise the point on preregistration, which is one of the issues at the forefront of our minds as we go through this. The Father of the House recognises that there are particular issues, including in relation to medical records that may have been lost over time, dating back decades. There needs to be a clear system so that people know how to take advantage of the scheme.
On compensation and scams, I share my hon. Friend’s concern. I am not certain how we will be able to address that. It is obviously an issue that afflicts many of our constituents in many circumstances, but I am sure that it will not be impossible to deliver timely advice alongside the scheme.
In terms of tax, the recommendation is clear that this should be tax free and should be disregarded for benefits. In relation to inheritance tax in particular, there are complexities that need to be examined. Whether we need to have legislation as part of that process is one of the issues that we are working on. If my hon. Friend or other hon. Members have detailed questions, they are more than welcome to write to me and I shall respond.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
We in the SNP pay tribute to those affected by the infected blood scandal—one in three infected with HIV were children—and their continued decades-long struggle for justice. Today’s announcement of a swift response to Sir Robert Francis’s final recommendations relating to compensation is indeed welcome, but the Minister will understand the widespread disappointment about his inability to commit today to a date for publishing a response to Sir Robert’s compensation framework report.
The Minister will be aware that there is understandably a significant and remaining lack of trust between those impacted by infected blood, the UK Government and existing support schemes. Recommendation 16 of Sir Robert’s study calls for an arm’s length body to
“administer…compensation…with…independence of judgement and accountable directly to Parliament”.
I hope the Minister will tell us today that he will keep the House updated on the progress of that.
Thousands of families across the UK have experienced great trauma after they have cared for loved ones suffering—or in many cases dying—due to contaminated blood. Does the Minister support the notion of the interim scheme being extended to families and carers who have cared for people with infected blood?
Jeremy Quin
There are two points in particular. On the arm’s length body, a persuasive case is made in recommendation 16. Looking at the principles of that, particularly on independence, we are not yet ready to commit to an ALB, but we definitely want to have a body that will have the trust and respect of those whom we are seeking to support. Work is going on as to how that will best be constituted, but recognition of independence is key behind the principles of the recommendation of an ALB. I look forward to updating the hon. Lady on other issues as the work progresses.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement. Victims of the scandal are clearly cared for by carers and by their families. I welcome the fact that the interim payments are exempt from tax and disregarded for benefits. Has he assessed what the impact has been on families? What should any victim, or the families of victims, do if they have not been disregarded for benefits or for tax purposes? Can he provide assistance on that to ensure that families receive the full compensation?
Jeremy Quin
People absolutely should have received those payments, which should have been disregarded. If there are any issues, they should be taken up with the relevant support schemes. I would like to hear from hon. Members if they hear of such instances and I will happily take them up on behalf of their constituents.
My hon. Friend mentioned carers, as did the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). Again, a strong recommendation is made in the report. It is an area of deep complexity, as the House will recognise, so it may have to wait for Sir Brian Langstaff’s specific recommendations, but we absolutely are thinking through the implications.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The disappointment is absolutely tangible. Time after time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), the Father of the House and many other colleagues have asked about the Government response to the report, which was published eight months ago. That it is being kicked into the grass until next summer is deeply disappointing.
Will the Minister confirm that the compensation scheme will include children who lost parents—often both parents, as the person who was infected was not told and so infected their partner—as well as the parents of the 300-plus children who died of AIDS, and that they will receive payments? Will he elaborate on the preparations being made and reassure us that they include IT systems, secondment and recruitment of staff, training of staff and, most importantly, the identification of all of those who may be entitled to payments, especially given the stigma that still surrounds contaminated blood?
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Lady makes a series of excellent points. I want to assure her on one point: as shown by the fact that I am here today, we want to talk about this. We want to make certain that we are making progress, and I wanted to update the House on the progress being made. I will continue to do so. I hope that reassures her about how seriously we take these matters.
It was always the intention, with the study under Sir Robert, that there would be help to prepare us to be ready for Sir Brian’s report, and that remains the case. Both Sir Robert and Sir Brian are absolutely clear about the moral case for compensation of children affected by the loss of parents. How that is arranged is deeply complex, as Sir Robert said himself, so Sir Brian Langstaff had to do specific work on that. However, I totally accept the case being made on behalf of those children. I also accept that, whatever the precise mechanism, there is a huge amount of work to ensure that the scheme is up and running as swiftly as possible, from the recruitment of those running it through to IT systems, staff and the like, given the complexity of what they will be confronted with.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Will the Minister please clarify whether all of those eligible for interim compensation received their payments on time?
Jeremy Quin
I believe that that is absolutely the case, and I am pleased to reassure my hon. Friend on that. It is also the case that, under the recommendations, there is still room for people to apply, if they have not applied to date. They should be looked after between now and a new scheme coming forward at a future point.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
One of my constituents has been deeply affected by this issue. She has endured, in her words,
“a long, upsetting and depressing process.”
The strain on her and her family has been enormous.
The Hepatitis C Trust has warned that people affected by the infected blood scandal are falling through the gaps in the present frameworks for financial assistance and compensation, including those whose medical records have been lost and destroyed, which the Minister touched on—I would like him to expand on that—and people who were born abroad. What assessment have the Government made of the number of people who fit into that category, or when can we expect to receive such an assessment? What will he do to put things right?
Jeremy Quin
First, I absolutely sympathise with the hon. Lady’s constituent. However, I hope that, since 2017, with the statutory inquiry, the report and the payment of interim compensation, they have seen that we have got a direction of travel and that things are moving in the right direction. I know, given the weight of people’s loss, that that has taken too long, but we are working on it.
I recognise that there are issues in regard to hepatitis C and in particular hepatitis B. In relation to hep B, Sir Robert said that Sir Brian needed to take further medical evidence. It is one of the areas where, because of the absolute complexity, we may need to wait for the Langstaff report before we can be specific, but are we aware of the issues? Yes, we are, and I am grateful that the hon. Lady has brought the matter to the House’s attention.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my constituent who lost her beloved husband to this scandal and who recently wrote to me about the sort of disinformation that often is out there about this scandal, sometimes even from official sources. The Minister said that
“time is of the essence”.
Does he understand why, to many of the victims, it does not feel that way? Can he at least tell the House when he would expect this matter to be finally resolved, even if that is not immediately an exact date? They need some understanding that closure will come and that they will be compensated appropriately in a timely fashion.
Jeremy Quin
The direct answer is that finality will come only after Sir Brian has reported. That is expected during the course of next year, with the work to be completed by the end of next year. I know that seems an awfully long time to wait. Our job as a Government is to make certain we are ready to respond to those recommendations. That was why my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), now the Leader of the House, commissioned Sir Robert’s report, and the onus is on us to make certain that we can act swiftly and effectively on the recommendations made.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Sir Brian’s report will be published next year. Rather than the Minister simply saying that the recommendations will be acted upon, can he give a firm commitment that the recommendations will be accepted and implemented?
Jeremy Quin
That is a sincerely asked question, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s sincerity. I trust that he will understand my sincerity when I say that I am not in a position to give a carte blanche acceptance. He appreciates that no Minister can do that on behalf of the Government for a report they have not yet seen. Have we accepted the moral case for compensation? We have. Have we paid interim compensation? We have. Are we keen to make certain we are in a position to respond effectively when the report is published? Absolutely, we will aim to do exactly that.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
I echo the calls from my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) that a way should be found to extend compensation payments to carers. That is particularly important to a constituent I have heard from. Can the Minister also say a bit more about exactly when and how he will engage with the devolved Administrations and also with survivors’ and families’ groups to ensure they are kept informed and consulted throughout this process?
Jeremy Quin
First, I pay tribute to Sir Brian and Sir Robert for the work they have done to ensure that they are speaking to those affected in the communities, and I would like to personally speak to those members of the communities as well, as we progress our work. Contact is already ongoing with the devolved Administrations. We all had to work together on the interim compensation scheme, and it is critical that we do work together. This is a UK-wide issue, and I am sure we will be able to work collaboratively to ensure we get the right answers for those who have been infected and affected.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Paymaster General for his statement. I know he is committed to this issue and will bring his personal commitment to ensuring it is resolved as soon as possible.
One of my constituents lost four family members: her brother, sister-in-law, aunt and cousin. Her 10-year-old nephew was orphaned and left to be brought up by her mother on a state pension. They have received not a penny. I appreciate the complexities in working out the timetable, but he is now in his late 30s, and we cannot imagine the trauma he has gone through with losing his parents and the stigma of their deaths. He cannot wait any longer. These people need support and compensation now. If the Minister could come back in the new year with a timetable for next year—not necessarily a detailed one—that would be helpful.
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Lady spoke for so many people in the House when she talked through that specific heart-rending example. Given the circumstances she refers to, it is no wonder that Sir Robert and Sir Brian have made clear their view on the moral case. I absolutely recognise what she would like me to do, which is to present a timetable. I will do my utmost in the new year to set out the steps we will be taking. I do not want to commit to anything we are not going to meet, and the hon. Lady will appreciate that. She recognises the complexity, but I want to reassure people that the work is under way to ensure that we are ready for the Langstaff report.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
My constituent David Farrugia is part of what is called the fatherless generation. The scandal and the length of time it has taken to address these issues have had a profound effect on his mental health, as I am sure the Minister can imagine. Does he agree there is a clear and compelling moral case for compensation for the children of victims, which they are not currently eligible for? If he agrees that there is a clear and compelling moral case, can he set out when the compensation will be forthcoming?
Jeremy Quin
The moral case for compensation for children was specifically referred to by Sir Robert and Sir Brian. The interim compensation payments were arranged in the way recommended by Sir Brian—we accepted that recommendation in full. They were, among other things, to be as swift as possible—that defined the terms of those payments, but that does not mean that children are being ignored in this process. The moral case was set out in the report, and we as a Government accepted a moral case for compensation to be paid.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The stigma that is sadly still attached to diseases associated with contaminated blood makes it hard for victims to come forward. What are the Government doing to tackle that stigma and ensure that every victim of contaminated blood is found and receives support? May I take this opportunity to ask for reassurance that every victim across the United Kingdom and the devolved Administrations is found and given that support?
Jeremy Quin
I absolutely recognise what the hon. Lady says. One of the most distressing things with this brief—it was only really when I got this brief that I worked through the implications—was the stigma and the fact that this was happening in an era when people were not enlightened on AIDS and HIV. The consequences for families were extraordinary, and I fear, as she does, that that stigma can still be retained today. She makes the point that this scheme must be not only as easy and as easy to access as possible, but well publicised, and people should be invited to be part of it. That must be part of the final approach. All those who have a case should be given support to be part of the scheme and receive the compensation that will be outlined.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is clear from Members who have spoken that there is a sense of urgency. I perceive from the Minister’s responses that he grasps that urgency, and I thank him for that. Can he confirm that the route to compensation in the devolved nation of Northern Ireland in particular, but also in Scotland, Wales and England, will be straightforward and not a quagmire in which people seek professional and costly advice that eats into compensation and adds stress to the process for them?
Jeremy Quin
I absolutely want to give that reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. Sir Robert looked at a number of alternatives. There is a scheme operating in the Irish Republic that is a more of a common-law approach. His recommendation is that we must do something that is simpler and easier to access. After all the suffering that has taken place, we do not want to layer on to that the complexities of having to seek expensive advice to be part of a scheme. We absolutely want to do something that is simple and easily accessible so that we can ensure that everybody who is owed compensation is in a position to secure it.
Afghanistan: Independent Inquiry
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I will make a statement on an independent inquiry related to Afghanistan. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has commissioned an independent statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 to investigate and report on alleged unlawful activity by British armed forces during deliberate detention operations in Afghanistan in the period from mid-2010 to mid-2013, and the adequacy of subsequent investigations into such allegations.
The decision has been informed by two ongoing judicial review cases known as Saifullah and Noorzai. The claimants in those cases assert that relevant allegations of unlawful activity were not properly investigated. The underlying events have been the subject of comprehensive service police criminal investigations, but the Ministry of Defence accepts that Operation Northmoor should have started earlier and that there may be further lessons to learn from the incidents, despite there being insufficient evidence for any prosecutions.
My right hon. Friend has asked the right hon. Lord Justice Haddon-Cave to chair the inquiry, and Lord Justice Haddon-Cave has stepped down from his role as senior presiding judge for England and Wales to focus on this task. He has valuable experience: he chaired the Nimrod review into the loss of RAF Nimrod MR2 aircraft XV230 in Afghanistan in 2006 and served as the judge in charge of the terrorism list between 2017 and 2018.
A copy of the terms of reference for this inquiry will be placed in the Library of the House. The inquiry will start work in earnest in early 2023 and will be fully resourced and supported so that it can carry out its work and report expeditiously. The Saifullah and Noorzai claimants have been consulted on the terms of reference but I will not comment further on ongoing court proceedings.
The UK’s armed forces rightly hold themselves to the highest possible operational standards. Operations must be conducted within the clear boundaries of the law and credible allegations against our forces must always be investigated thoroughly. The service justice system is capable of investigating and prosecuting all criminal offences on operations overseas and here in the UK. Defence has worked hard over recent years to ensure that the processes in place to maintain justice in the armed forces are effective, and that allegations of criminal wrongdoing arising from any future operations are raised and investigated appropriately.
It was a manifesto commitment of the Government to tackle the vexatious legal claims that have targeted our armed forces over recent years, but the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 was always designed to permit the investigation and follow-up of any serious allegations irrespective of time passed. We will of course ensure that all service personnel, veterans, and current and former civil servants who are asked to engage with the inquiry are given full legal and pastoral support.
I hope that the whole House shares my pride in our armed forces. They are renowned throughout the world for their courage, integrity and professionalism. We are profoundly grateful for their service today, as we were while they were deployed at our behest in Afghanistan.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and the terms of reference for Lord Justice Haddon-Cave. We welcome the special inquiry, the Minister’s confirmation that its work will start early in 2023 and his commitment to provide full legal and pastoral support. We recognise the bravery of all those who served in Afghanistan and the dangers we asked them to face—none more than our special forces, who carry out the most extraordinary missions with extreme risks to defend us and our allies.
Our British armed forces have a proud tradition of upholding the highest standards of military ethics, professionalism and international law. That is fundamental to a disciplined military force and to Britain’s standing and moral authority as one of the world’s leading democracies, so allegations of unlawful killings and cover-ups could not be more serious. This inquiry is essential to protect the reputation of our British special forces, to guarantee the integrity of military investigations, and to secure justice for those affected. The question is: will it do the job? Is it set up to succeed? Is the MOD—military, civilian and political—fully committed to making it succeed? Too often, it responds with denial and delay.
Over the last five years, Defence Secretaries have had three reports with more than 148 recommendations on how to fix failings in military investigations, yet one essential recommendation—the Defence serious crime unit—was launched only last week. When confronted with the BBC “Panorama” reports about these allegations in July, the MOD immediately dismissed them as “irresponsible, incorrect” and jumping to “unjustified conclusions”. When pushed by all parties, as well as senior ex-military figures, journalists and the judiciary, the Defence Secretary signalled this independent inquiry two weeks later.
On the terms of reference, can the Minister confirm that the inquiry will investigate to substantiate any allegations, not just investigate how the allegations were handled? Will the inquiry cover the full chain of command—military, civil service and ministerial? How can the inquiry’s independence be assured when it is housed within the MOD? On the declaration that the Secretary of State expects maximum co-operation from MOD personnel, will the head of the Army issue a similar statement or command to forces personnel?
The Minister knows but does not mention that similar allegations were made from the same period against Australian special forces in Afghanistan. They were investigated thoroughly via a special inquiry commissioned not by Ministers, but by the head of the Australian army, because getting to the truth should matter most to military leaders. Has the Minister or any other Defence Minister met Justice Brereton to understand his inquiry? If not, why not? If so, why are key features of his successful inquiry missing from this one?
In the Brereton inquiry, the judge had senior military not just judicial experience; he had legal immunities to get beyond the culture of silence; and he had legal powers to require documents and summon witnesses. If Judge Haddon-Cave considers that changes to his powers or terms of reference are required during the inquiry, will Ministers agree? This inquiry must succeed and we in the Opposition will do all we can to ensure that it does.
Dr Murrison
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. It is important to say that the inquiry is set up under the Inquiries Act 2005, which means that it will be a statutory inquiry under the control of Lord Justice Haddon-Cave. He will summon whichever witnesses he thinks fit and potentially compel them to give evidence under oath, as required by legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman asks whether the inquiry will involve the full chain of command, the answer to which is yes. He also asks whether the inquiry being housed in the Ministry of Defence is an issue, to which I would say no. Lord Justice Haddon-Cave requested that his team be based in the MOD so that he can have full access to IT systems, some of which are at a high level of classification. However, it is important that only he has access to the accommodation that has been set aside for this purpose, to maintain the appearance and actuality of complete independence from the MOD, about which I can give the right hon. Gentleman full assurances.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about Australia. The Australian investigations made it clear that there are no British persons of interest as a result of that inquiry. It is also important to say clearly that allegations made to a television production company are not the same as allegations made in court or, indeed, to a statutory inquiry. In the light of the “Panorama” report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, service police, as I understand it, have contacted the BBC to ask for evidence. I am not aware of any new evidence having been provided beyond that which has already been investigated.
It is important to underscore the fact that Lord Justice Haddon-Cave has been selected by the Lord Chief Justice because he is the most senior of judicial figures. With that, of course, comes the full knowledge and understanding that he is acting independently. I have no doubt that he will go wherever the evidence takes him, and that is the reason that such a senior figure has been appointed to this extremely important task.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for updating the House on this inquiry. Obviously, the overseas operations Act helped to break the cycle of investigating soldiers for historic claims, but it maintained the position that, where there is compelling evidence against individuals, action can be taken. Will he therefore update the House on what will be taken forward from this inquiry and what the implications are for the Act?
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He will be aware that the overseas operations Act was designed to raise the hurdle, in the sense that it was a commitment that we all made—those of us who stood on the Conservative manifesto—to deal with the repetitive, vexatious claims being made against our armed forces, which were causing them significant difficulty. These people have served our country well; we owe them a duty of gratitude and we need to ensure that they are not the target of repetitive, vexatious claims by money-grubbing lawyers—that is the basis of this.
None of the members of the armed forces whom I know want to see their reputation dragged through the mire. It is hardly surprising that people in Ukraine look to the UK at this time for training and for support in the situation in which they find themselves. They know full well that the UK upholds the moral component of warfare like no other. That licence, as it were, comes with a price, and that price is ensuring that, when credible and serious allegations are made, we investigate them.
Nothing in the overseas operations Act will prevent serious allegations from being investigated, regardless of timeline, but my hon. Friend will be aware that those have to be serious allegations, and they cannot be repetitive. That is the security that we have given members of our armed forces and veterans, who were previously the butt of repetitive, vexatious legal disputes. I hope that gives my hon. Friend the reassurance he seeks.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of the statement. I declare a personal interest, given that my brother served two tours of duty in Afghanistan, but not in the special forces.
I welcome the fact that the Minister said there is a credible requirement for the investigation. Although SNP Members might not agree with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about the overseas operations Act, I am glad the Minister, the Department and the Secretary of State for Defence at least believe that this inquiry needs to take place. However, I have a bit of a concern, which I am sure the Minister will seek to clarify. As a former member of the Defence Committee, and having sat on the previous Armed Forces Bill Committee, both of which, critically, discussed the treatment of women in the armed forces, I know there is grave concern that, when there is any type of investigation—especially if it is credible—the justice system does not view it properly.
I therefore seek reassurances from the Minister that the right hon. Lord Justice Haddon-Cave recognises the complexity of the case and understands the lived experience not only of those making the accusations, but—the Minister is probably right about this—those in the armed forces as well. Lord Justice Haddon-Cave must understand the overall complexity of the issues being investigated and take on board the entirety of them in any conclusions, because previous investigations—notably around the treatment of women in the armed forces—give me grave cause for concern.
I also want to put on record my commitment and that of my party to members of the armed forces, who play their role and put their lives on the line daily. On a personal note, I recognised that when my brother served two tours of duty in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. He and his comrades in arms put their best foot forward and did the duty they were asked to, but even they recognise that, sometimes, people make mistakes. If mistakes have been made, they need to be properly investigated, and the full weight of the law needs to be brought to bear.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I pay tribute to his brother for his service. Justice Haddon-Cave is no ordinary judge; he is one of the most senior members of our judiciary, and he has been selected by the Lord Chief Justice for this task because of that. It therefore follows that he is perfectly capable of appreciating the complexity of this issue. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the reassurance he seeks.
As for the further conduct of the inquiry, that will now be a matter for Lord Justice Haddon-Cave; it certainly will not be a matter for me. I underscore that this is an independent inquiry, and it would be entirely improper for me, from this point, to comment further on its conduct. As I understand it, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave intends to issue a statement of his own shortly.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This Minister, of all Ministers, will be aware that our armed forces veterans are acutely depressed and angry about the fact that their political masters sent them into this impossible war, where they faced an enemy who was utterly merciless, who had no regard to any conventions—Geneva or otherwise—and who was unspeakably cruel. Of course, the Taliban Government will never have any such inquiry into their own forces. I know that we have the overseas operations Act, and the Minister rightly said that it creates a presumption against vexatious claims, but I would like to tease out from him how the inquiry will have a carefully calibrated investigation, and also that the bar for prosecutions will indeed be high. Otherwise, we will inflict a severe blow on the morale of the veterans of our brave armed forces. None of them wanted to go to Afghanistan—we put them there.
Dr Murrison
I very much appreciate my right hon. Friend’s point. We have focused on individuals in the questioning so far, and I would like to point out that our principal concern is elucidating any systemic factors that have not been investigated fully as a result of the investigations we have had up to this point.
In particular, I would expect Lord Justice Haddon-Cave to be mindful of ensuring that we are compliant with our obligations under article 2 specifically, and articles 2 and 3 more generally, as we are required to be under our treaty obligations, and to learn things more generally about what went on that may help us to improve what we do. That is the reason for the investigation. It most certainly is not to pillory individuals or to seek to repeat the service investigations by the service police that have already been done, which have been externally and independently validated, if that brings any comfort to my right hon. Friend.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
May I declare an interest as a former company commander with the special forces support group who served in Afghanistan? As such, I know that the overwhelming number of people who serve in our armed forces, and particularly in the UKSF, do so with huge distinction and extraordinary courage. As the Minister said, we can be very proud of their service. They rightly aspire to maintain the very highest of professional standards and adherence to the rule of law. After all, it is that which differentiates us from our opponents. As the Minister said, it is therefore necessary that, when serious allegations are made, they are investigated, but that needs to be done thoroughly and independently, so I welcome the statement that the Minister has made today.
Clearly, none of us would want to prejudge the inquiry, but, looking slightly to the longer term, has the Minister or the Department given any consideration to the potential merits of tasking the Intelligence and Security Committee to provide oversight of UKSF?
Dr Murrison
I rise again with a sense of trepidation, Madam Deputy Speaker, acknowledging the hon. Gentleman’s service in Afghanistan. The point that he has made has been made before. I think it was made when we covered some of this ground back in July. He will know the way that this part of our armed forces operates and the difficulties and constraints under which they operate. We are going through this process now with a statutory inquiry. That is a big deal. I expect Lord Justice Haddon-Cave to go everywhere he needs to go to discover the truth and make public all of it—so far as he can within the constrictions of national security.
With all due respect, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on having a further mechanism of auditing the operations of parts of our armed forces. It is probably right that we assure ourselves that all parts of our armed forces operate within the rule of law and that their rules of engagement are legal. He will be aware of the extraordinary lengths that defence takes, particularly now and in recent years, to ensure that everything it does is lawful. Personally, I am comfortable with that; I am confident that we do that. Although I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion—we keep everything under consideration, and it will be interesting to see what Lord Justice Haddon-Cave comes up with—I am not minded, at this point in time, to accept it.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Similar allegations against Australian special forces were investigated fully by an independent judge-led inquiry, backed by welfare support for troops and their families, to get the truth. The Minister has spoken of legal and pastoral support, but can he explain whether the UK inquiry will provide similar or better welfare support, and can he give us those reassurances today?
Dr Murrison
I think I can. As I speak, we are contacting those who may be affected by today’s statement to give them details of the support that is available to them. Anybody who is asked to be a witness in this inquiry will be contacted by the Ministry of Defence to explain what is available. To be clear, people who are requested to appear before Lord Justice Haddon-Cave will be provided with the legal and pastoral support that they need to get them through this. It is appropriate to put it on record that this statement will cause a lot of dismay and anxiety among those individuals who have served this country with great distinction. We understand that and I give the hon. Lady a commitment that we will do all in our power to make sure that we stand with them and give them the support that is required.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Can the Minister say whether any current or former members of the armed forces have been disciplined in relation to the special forces raid in Shesh Aba in August 2012 reported by the BBC?
Dr Murrison
I will not get into that. Lord Justice Haddon-Cave will investigate the matter fully and report in due course.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Just over a century ago, my father’s house—my father was a child of about the same age as some of the children who were shot during some of the incidents under investigation—was raided by British auxiliaries in the west of Ireland in a quite violent incident. I shall never forget that my grandmother, relating that story to me as a child, was eternally grateful to the British Army officer who intervened and stopped violence being perpetrated. It has always struck me that culture and leadership within our armed forces is key to our standing and reputation in the world. Does the Minister agree that principal among the outcomes from this inquiry should be clear co-operation from the leadership of our armed forces in making sure that it gets to the truth?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. There is that commitment right at the very top of our armed forces that we should get this right and that we should learn any lessons that need to be learned. I can give him that commitment. I entirely understand the point that he has made and the experience that he relates.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
And finally—as I have already said twice this morning—Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I do not mind being last in any debate; I am just very pleased to be given the opportunity to ask a question. The Minister, I think, has genuinely tried to answer the questions sensitively. With that in mind, will he outline the steps that are in place to offer support to any personnel under investigation, as similar proceedings that I and other Members in the Chamber are aware of in Northern Ireland have seen many innocent soldiers turning to addiction as a result of trauma and stress—I am aware of those cases personally. Will he confirm that innocent until proven guilty remains the standard for any investigation?
Dr Murrison
There are structures within the Army in particular to deal with the pastoral care of individuals who may be facing allegations. The Army operational legacy branch, for example, will be standing by to assist in this particular area. I reiterate the commitment that I gave earlier: anybody who is wrapped up in this business will be given everything that they need—legal and pastoral—to get them through this. We will stand by them. We owe them that, and I will make sure that that happens. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he needs.
Points of Order
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Slough has a low uptake of diphtheria vaccination—not enough to accomplish herd immunity—yet the Home Office has designated a Slough hotel as a place for asylum seekers with diphtheria. We have people staying for months in accommodation designated as a 48-hour reception facility. Families with young children are split across different rooms and different floors. There are safeguarding concerns, with vulnerable women and children placed alongside large numbers of single men; overcrowding issues; numerous instances of people absconding; and insufficient laundry facilities, leading to scabies infections. Our already stretched local children’s services are having to find extra money from who knows where to provide clothes and school equipment for unaccompanied children. The council is getting only 24 hours’ notice—if that—from the Home Office when it commandeers a new site to host asylum seekers.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in your esteemed capacity, could you please advise me on how I can finally secure a reply from the Home Secretary, on behalf of the local agencies in Slough that have written to me, to explain how Home Office Ministers intend to fix this mess and put some humanity back into the way that they are caring for the people in their care?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As I think he knows, it is not a point of order for the Chair; it does not concern order in this House. He is, however, raising a very serious matter. I appreciate it from the point of view of what happens in my constituency, and many Members of this House will appreciate the point he makes and share his concerns. His question to me is about how he can bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate Minister. There are various ways in which he can do that, and I am sure that those in the Table Office will help him if he goes to seek advice there. I am also certain that Ministers currently on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he has said and that the matter will, we hope, be conveyed to the appropriate Minister. I must also point out to him that on Tuesday we have the general debate on matters to be raised before the Adjournment and it would be perfectly proper for him to bring forward his concerns then.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Successive Speakers have agreed that Members should receive responses from Departments in a timely fashion, yet last week my office received a response from the Home Office to an inquiry made on 1 October 2021. That represents a gap of 14 months and one week. I wonder whether you agree that that is simply unacceptable and that the Government are failing in their duties to this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and, yes, I agree that that is simply unacceptable. Mr Speaker has said from the Chair on countless occasions, and those of us who echo his words have also said this on countless occasions, that it is essential that Departments should support Ministers in giving answers to Members of Parliament in a timely fashion. Fourteen months is not a timely fashion. The hon. Gentleman has put his concerns on the record and the whole House agrees that it is a matter of concern.
Backbench Business
Prepayment Meters: Self-Disconnection
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises that prepayment meter customers, who pay for their usage in advance, are not afforded the same rights when in energy debt as customers who pay in arrears, such as those who pay in direct debit; understands that a prepayment meter customer is automatically disconnected when they exceed just £10 of debt; acknowledges that, in contrast, those who pay in arrears are afforded time and support to resolve their debts before action is taken to disconnect; is deeply concerned that so called self-disconnection of prepayment meter customers will see the most vulnerable in our society left without heat, light and facilities to cook and wash over the coming winter; and strongly urges the Government to outlaw self-disconnection to ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable customers are not left without basic energy provision.
First, let me thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to this debate, and for understanding the urgent nature of it and, thus, offering me a pre-Christmas date. It is urgent, because something needs to be done now, even if only on a temporary basis. It is urgent enough for me to say at the outset that I am not just trying to raise awareness today; I am asking the Minister to do something about this, preferably today. Perhaps he will be unable to do so because of procedure, but I hope he will at least resolve to listen closely and act urgently.
Anne McLaughlin
I see that the Minister is nodding and I thank him for that. I hope he is able to come back next week before Parliament goes into recess, before we are plunged into even colder temperatures than we are experiencing at the moment and before people start dying because they did not enjoy the same rights as the majority of people. I urge him to come back next week and tell us that he has decided to give everyone those rights and that he will do so by outlawing so-called “self-disconnection” for those on prepayment meters.
I am also calling on the energy suppliers to do the same. One of them surely will have the moral compass and backbone to lead the way and be the first to promise that nobody—none of its customers—will be subjected to self-disconnection simply because they are on a prepayment meter. I am calling on the big six, as those guys have the money—they have the billions—and they can do this. Those companies have to take responsibility, but we probably cannot wait for that and the Government need to compel them to do so.
The other thing I would like the Government to get on top of this side of Christmas is ensuring that everybody is accessing the energy bill discount of £66 a month. The consumer rights group Which? told me this morning that a reported £84 million of that money is not reaching half a million households—the ones who need it the most. That is happening for a variety of reasons. Every company has a different way to access this help, with some requiring people to go to the post office. With others, the help arrives by post and often the recipient thinks that this is junk mail or they are afraid to open the letter. That is what happens when someone is on a low income: they get scared of the letters coming through the door, so they bury their head in the sand. I know that the Secretary of State has written to these companies about this issue, but anything more that can be done must be done urgently.
Before I come on to the substance of the debate, may I also thank the many MPs, from all parties, who signed my debate application, both those who are here today and those who sent messages of support, as I very much appreciate it? More importantly, our constituents will appreciate seeing their MPs stand up and fight for them —I hate to say it, but in some cases they are fighting for these people’s lives.
I pay my gas and electricity bills by standing order. In common with those who pay by direct debit or pay when the bill comes in, I pay in arrears. Also in common with those who pay in arrears, if I stop paying my bills I can be disconnected by my energy provider but it is very much a final step—a last resort. That is not the case for those who pay by prepayment meter. Should they be unable to pay for gas or electricity, the first thing that happens is that they are disconnected from their supply. The minute they go over the £10 or, in some cases, £5 of emergency credit that is applied to each prepayment meter, their supply just stops and they are considered to have self-disconnected.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing today’s debate. Does she agree that it is an absolute disgrace that people on a prepayment meter are having to pay more for their energy, particularly as they are often the people in greatest deprivation and cannot afford to do so?
Anne McLaughlin
I absolutely agree on that. I should thank the hon. Lady, because I have a ten-minute rule Bill on this matter and she spoke up for it last week in allowing it to continue in this place. I will come on to that. It is so ironic that the poorest people are paying the most. We get to pay less, yet we are paying in arrears.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent beginning to her speech. Does she agree that what we see from the energy companies is the “rocket and feathers principle”, where the prices skyrocket when they first come in but then they drop like feathers? The gas price has actually gone down, so why are some people paying up to £4,300 for their energy just on their gas bill when that far outstrips what one would be paying on a direct debit or other form of payment for gas?
Anne McLaughlin
Yes, I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady on that. The whole system is wrong and crazy. Let me go back to what I was saying about the people who are just disconnected for their £5 or £10 of debt. When they are disconnected, they cannot boil a kettle or heat a room. They cannot even heat an electric blanket. They cannot wash their clothes, have a shower or watch TV—they cannot even charge their phones. In some cases, which I will come on to, they can no longer operate disability aids—that is an absolute disgrace. It means that I, as a well-paid MP and someone who is clearly able to pay their bills, could stop paying them just on a whim and, unlike someone on a meter I could then run up hundreds or perhaps thousands of pounds-worth of debt to my energy supplier before being disconnected, whereas people on prepayment meters—the ones with the least money—are limited to a debt of only £5 or £10 before they are cut off. It is that inequity that I want addressed.
I do not believe the Minister will tell me today that this situation is fair. I would be amazed if he did try to argue there was anything equitable about this treatment. So, as I have said in the past, I am hopeful, verging on confident, that the Government will support what I am calling for here. As I said at the start, the Government need to do it quickly—they need to do it now. I know how slowly things move in this place, but I also know the Government can move quickly when they need to, and I argue that they really do need to. I am desperately worried about people out there. I am worried that people are going to die—people who would have lived, had this awful practice been outlawed.
However, I want to start by talking about a very important group of people who do not fit that category, because they are not going to live for much longer regardless of the result of my campaign. I have been speaking to Marie Curie about its “Dying in poverty” campaign and have heard about the people it is supporting: people who return home after a lengthy stay in hospital or a hospice, try to top up the prepayment meter and discover that the large sum they have topped up by just is not enough.
Why is that? Because every day they were in the hospice, they racked up daily standing charges. They were not there and they did not use gas or electricity, but they have a big debt to pay off before they can even access heat or light. Worse, their daily standing charges are higher than our daily standing charges. When we consider that the average cost of an electricity bill can rise by 75% for someone who is terminally ill, it is doubly unfair. Would any of us want that situation for our own families? Of course we would not—and if it is not good enough for our families, it is not good enough for anybody’s family.
I want to run through some of my main concerns about these meters. Those on prepayment meters are generally on them because they are on low income and most are given no choice. Citizens Advice described the process as follows: people have a period where they are unable to pay their bills and their energy supplier is obliged to negotiate a repayment plan that takes in to account their ability to pay for the debt and their ongoing energy consumption. Because of the higher costs, however, many people do not have enough money to cover their ongoing usage, let alone pay towards arrears. They begin to fall behind on payments and, to recover that money, the supplier gains entry to their home and installs a prepayment meter.
Rachael Maskell
I do not know whether the hon. Lady saw this article in The Independent, but I was completely taken aback and shocked to read that Wigan and Leigh magistrates court took a call from the energy supplier and, in just three minutes 51 seconds, determined that 496 people would have their energy supply cut off. Where is the scrutiny in that? Surely we should not be cutting anyone off at this time?
Anne McLaughlin
That is exactly what the Good Law Project is working on; I think it was featured in that article. Tens of thousands of warrants are being rubber-stamped by magistrates in minutes. The Good Law Project has asked me to ask the Minister whether the Government will consider instructing Ofgem to require energy companies to halt all new installations of prepayment meters, including remote switching of smart meters.
There is a problem of people on smart meters being switched to prepayment without the need for a warrant, because the warrant is about gaining entry to the house and, if the switch can be done remotely, there is no need to gain entry. Ofgem called those practices “unacceptable” and said it would take action if they continued. Six weeks after it said that, they are continuing, so I am keen to know what action Ofgem plans to take and when it plans to do it.
The energy companies say that the reason those on prepayment meters pay more is the cost of installing the meter. I am not sure I buy that, and in any case I do not think the cost should be passed to the customer, but, if that is the case, surely they cannot charge higher amounts to someone who has been switched remotely? Another concern is that, as has been mentioned, people on prepayment meters pay more per unit of energy and higher daily standing charges, and they pay in advance while the rest of us get to pay in arrears.
I am also concerned about the numbers: 60,000 new meters were installed across the UK in the six months to March this year, reversing a long-term trend of falling numbers. However, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy does not know how many people are being put on prepayment meters now and it cannot give me an answer to that. I think the Minister will be interested in finding that out for us.
Something else that concerns me is that, according to Citizens Advice Scotland, Scotland disproportionately bears the brunt of this situation. We have more prepayment meters per population than any part of the UK: roughly 15% of people in the UK are on them, but it is 19% of people in Scotland and in my city of Glasgow it is over 20%. Scotland is also colder, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker—I see you nodding in agreement. Estimates suggest that next year, while the rest of the UK will pay on average a shocking £2,500 a year per household for energy bills, in Scotland it will be £3,300 on average.
It stands to reason that Scotland will see more disconnections, because people cannot magic up an extra £800 on top of all the other increases. There is nothing the Scottish Government can do, because we are not independent and we do not have the power in Scotland to do anything about it. That is ironic, given the amount of energy Scotland produces. We produce six times more gas than we consume and 80% of electricity comes from clean energy sources. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) said yesterday, we have the energy; we just do not have the power—yet.
Energy suppliers are supposed to be obliged to consider whether somebody is vulnerable before disconnection. I would argue that everyone on a prepayment meter, especially this winter and especially in the middle of a cost of living crisis, is vulnerable, but there are definitions that the suppliers are supposed to work to. Ofgem recently produced a report expressing a lack of confidence that they are doing so and certainly concerns that they are not doing it consistently.
Let us look at a few examples of people I would consider most vulnerable. We already know that those living with disability pay a financial premium; many of them have only ever known a cost of living crisis. The average extra cost of being disabled in the UK was £583 a month, and for the 24% of families with a disabled child, that figure was more than £1,000 a month before the cost of living crisis, so those figures will be higher now.
A report from Scope, the charity that fights every day for equality for disabled people, has shown that those with disabilities have higher energy needs in their homes and are even more exposed to the energy crisis—so exposed that 91% of those surveyed by Scope were worried that they would not be able to afford to pay their bills this winter. We often talk about choosing between heating and eating, but many of those paying a premium of well over £500 a month just to survive are now able to do neither adequately. For those on a prepayment meter that will spell disaster if we do not outlaw the practice of forced self-disconnection.
That is not always just about money. Many people with disabilities have mobility issues; I have heard of people who cannot reach their meter and have to wait for someone to help them with it, and others who have periods when they are unable to get out of the house to top up the meter.
Rachael Maskell
The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. I want to highlight people who have to use home medical devices. This could be a feeding machine, sleep apnoea machine or bilevel positive airway pressure machine—there are many devices that people have to use at home. Those people are now having to make significant choices about their health. Should they not have an additional payment? I know the Government have put in a little bit of money for disabled people, but should there not be full cost recovery for running those devices?
Anne McLaughlin
I absolutely agree with that, and for another reason too: we have an issue in the health service with bed blocking. If people are unable to run the equipment at home, they will end up in some kind of care facility, which blocks beds and increases the NHS waiting list. But yes, the moral argument is that they should absolutely have those costs covered.
Then there are people who have been homeless, who have finally moved into their new home and almost always find it has a prepayment meter. The Simon Community in Glasgow told me that many of the people it works with are simply walking the streets again in an effort to warm up because they do not have the money to get the meter working. How can that be right?
Many pensioners are on prepayment meters, and some will inevitably find themselves in the situation I have described, where they have no gas and no electricity. That is bad enough for anyone, but for a pensioner it can be disastrous. Age UK tells us that being cold even for a short period of time can be dangerous to older people. Age UK is widely respected and not given to hyperbole, so we really should listen. We cannot have our pensioners being cut off from gas and electricity because they have gone £5 or £10 over, while the rest of us have the luxury of paying our bills months in arrears.
The Children and Young People’s Commissioner of Scotland is campaigning for the right of children and young people not to find themselves with no gas or electricity in their home simply because their parents use a prepayment meter. He is calling for the definition of vulnerable to be widened, so that instead of applying only to children aged up to five, it applies to those up to 18. It is hard for me to think of an argument against that, so instead I wholeheartedly support it, and I ask if the Minister would be good enough to look at that question and come back to me on it.
All I am really asking is for those on prepayment meters to be treated equally to the rest of us. The right to be treated equally is crucial, because I have heard just two arguments against my proposal: first that people could end up in debt; and secondly, that people might simply not bother to pay their bills. On the latter point, I would argue strongly that those on prepayment meters are no more likely to be morally predisposed to not bothering to pay their bills than those of us who pay by different methods. Living on a low income does not make someone any less honest than anybody else. Yes, there is a risk that stopping self-disconnection could lead to people being in debt, but I repeat what I said in my ten-minute rule Bill speech: if the rest of us, paying by different methods, are allowed to take the risk of ending up in debt, and we are trusted to find ways to resolve that without being disconnected, why not those on prepayment meters? Secondly, if anyone in the Chamber is asked to choose between debt or death for their constituent, who among us would seriously choose death? I know how dramatic that sounds, but life is dramatic. It is unpredictable at the moment, and our constituents’ lives are at risk if we do not sort this.
The campaigning organisation Debt Justice wants the Government to start thinking now about what will happen to people who simply cannot pay their energy bills, and those who will rack up unpayable debts despite living frugally, and who will never be in a position to pay it off. Debt Justice wants the Government to start thinking about debt write-offs, and how that would work and who would be eligible. As I said, in order to stay alive, some people will have to run up debt. If we do not start talking about that now, some people will be so worried about that debt that they will simply switch everything off and their lives will then be endangered.
A point was raised with me by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland about the legislation that allows companies to forcibly enter people’s homes and install prepayment meters in the first place, namely the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954. First we were getting rid of the Human Rights Act, and then we were not, then we were again, and now I think I am right in saying we are not. We have the Human Rights Act, and we are keeping it, as we should, but the 1954 Act predates that. I would be grateful if the Minister could look into whether it is compatible with human rights legislation—I know that others are looking into that too.
We are heading for recess, and I have no objection to anyone taking a well-earned break. I know that we are not an emergency service, but we can do something now to prevent people from ending up in emergency situations. I am speaking up for everyone on prepayment meters, and I want nobody to be disconnected. I am most terrified for those whom I noted in my speech: young people, pensioners, those who were previously homeless, people living with a disability, and those living with a terminal illness. I repeat my call to the big six energy companies: will one of them please just have the backbone to be first to say that nobody will be forced into so-called self-disconnection this winter? We can argue later about how long that should last, but will one of those companies, today, please blaze a trail for their industry?
Finally, there would be no need for me to stand here and plead with those huge companies to throw people a few crumbs from their billions in profit if the Minister simply told them that they can no longer disconnect people on prepayment meters. A moratorium, a ban, right now—I don’t mind which. As long as when we head to our warm homes and our families for recess, we know that our constituents are guaranteed that their energy supply will not be cut off, leaving them in misery and their lives in peril.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
May I say what a moving experience it was to be in the Chamber this morning for the commemoration of the holocaust?
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). She is my constituency neighbour, and indeed my constituency MP, and she has done extremely well to secure this debate and in all her work on this important issue. I do not think there is anything wrong in principle with the concept of prepayment meters. There will always be consumers who find the ability to pay up front, instead of in arrears, helpful and convenient for a variety of different reasons. For some there will be a sense of security about their ability to budget, and to make sure that money is not spent on other things. There is perhaps a certain convenience, especially for those familiar with the technology, around digital prepayment where meters can be topped up from apps or by phone.
However, as my hon. Friend made clear, there is something fundamentally flawed about the way prepayment meter schemes work in this country, and as we have heard, the consequences are profoundly challenging. It has never been clear to me—I do not think it is clear to anyone in the Chamber—why there should be such a significant differential cost between prepayment meters and paying by direct debit. Although efforts have been made in recent years to align prices, there are still significant discrepancies. Citizens Advice has calculated that households who are moved to a prepayment meter this year alone will collectively spend £49.6 million more than they would have as direct debit customers over the coming winter. The excuses given by energy companies—that admin and infrastructure costs are higher—simply do not wash, especially with the arrival of smart meter and remote technology.
The much higher standing charge is particularly pernicious and unfair. My very limited experience of prepayment metering is relatively benign. Our campaign headquarters during the independence referendum campaign had a pay-as-you-go electric meter. In some respects that was helpful, because we did not need to worry about a bank account, and in theory we only paid for what we needed. However, on more than one occasion when we opened up the shop we found that the power was off because daily standing charges had eaten away at the credit, even though nobody had been in or used any power for several days. For us, that was a minor frustration and inconvenience, but for some of the most vulnerable in society, that represents a premium charge in already difficult and often heartbreaking situations.
Marie Curie’s “Dying in Poverty” report talks about situations where patients come home from hospital or a hospice to find the lights out, the heating off, or their meter in debt. People with terminal conditions, rushed perhaps at short notice to A and E, are unlikely to be thinking immediately about topping up their gas or electric meters, and if an extended stay leads to credit running down, they could return to a cold or dark property without immediate options to fix it. Marie Curie’s research also shows that a terminal diagnosis can lead to a 75% increase in energy bills. I have spoken in this place before about my very close friends Mel and Tom. Mel has very late stage cancer, and she explained some of the difficulties they are facing to Marie Curie:
“I live in the Highlands of Scotland, which is a colder climate and as soon as my bones get cold, they hurt. It’s very painful. We have to keep the house warm, but with the energy prices going up, we can’t do that.”
For customers like Mel and Tom who are on prepayment meters, the costs are already higher than they are for other customers. They already face high costs compared with those who can pay by direct debit, and those costs are rising as a result of overall market increases in prices. Overall usage is going up because of the particularly cold snap, and then usage is increasing again because keeping the house warm is literally a medical requirement. I think that counts as a quintuple-whammy, and it is all down to factors outwith their control. The Government and the Minister should listen to Marie Curie’s calls for all terminally ill people, regardless of age, to be eligible for support from the winter fuel payment and the warm home discount scheme.
Anne McLaughlin
My hon. Friend directed me to the story of the couple he mentioned. One of the most moving things to read was that, on top of needing to keep everything warm, all Mel wants to do is provide memories for her little boy—positive, happy family memories. She said that she cannot even begin to do that because she is too busy trying to keep on top of the energy bills. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is one of the hardest things for any parent to bear?
Patrick Grady
Yes, absolutely, and I recommend that everyone in the House reads that report, and not just that testimony, but testimonies from other people across the country. The point Mel made is that they are not unique. That situation is repeated up and down the country, and all of us will have such cases in our inbox. My hon. Friend mentioned Scope’s research, which found that 50% of disabled people who are on prepayment meters say they are forced to ration energy usage so that they do not lose supply, 26% are going off supply in order to save money, and 14% went off supply because they were not physically able to top up their meters due to their impairment. That is disgraceful behaviour on the part of energy companies—cutting people off because they physically cannot access their prepayment meters. Citizens Advice has documented similar cases. The increasing practice among energy companies of using smart meter technology to force people on to prepayment meters is particularly concerning, especially when they are using it as a means of avoiding the requirement for a warrant to enter people’s homes.
I echo Citizens Advice’s call for a moratorium on all forced switches to prepayment meters until at least April 2023. That chimes with the calls in my hon. Friend’s motion, in her ten-minute rule Bill and in other ten-minute rule Bills and motions that have been brought before the House. The Government have been using sitting Fridays in this Session to put a lot of very worthy legislation through the House, so there is no reason why they could not find a way to prioritise my hon. Friend’s Bill and offer some security to those who face fuel poverty or disconnection this winter.
The Government must work with and, if necessary, proactively regulate the energy companies to ensure that prices are aligned. Nobody should pay a premium just because of the type of meter or payment method they use, and especially not those who can least afford it.
Rachael Maskell
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government really need to talk to directors of public health? We are seeing a real spike in respiratory syncytial virus among children and babies, and in community-acquired pneumonia and flu. People in cold conditions are often the most susceptible to illness. To prevent a further crisis in the NHS, it is therefore really important that preventive measures be put in place so that people are not cold and living in damp housing.
Patrick Grady
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The case studies that we have highlighted show that this is a health issue: it is about people’s health and wellbeing. It is not about some sort of privilege or nice thing to have.
If people’s body temperature is not allowed to remain stable and they are not kept warm, the costs will ultimately be passed on to the NHS. Like a lot of interventions and preventive measures, this is going to have to be paid for somehow, so it should be paid for in a way that keeps people well, comfortable and cared for in their own home. Otherwise, the costs will be passed on via the interventions that come through the NHS. The energy companies need to realise that and step up their response. They are getting money up front from prepaying customers, and presumably they earn interest on money going into their bank account before the energy has been consumed, so you would think it would be in their interest to make prices fair across the board.
If the Government will not regulate the energy companies and the prices that people have to pay, they should devolve the powers so that Scotland’s Parliament can step up and step in. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East says, we are talking about energy-rich Scotland, where people living in fuel poverty look out their windows and see cheap, renewable, clean wind turbines on the horizon—energy-rich Scotland, where the average energy costs are higher than in the other parts of the UK and the use of prepayment meters is disproportionately higher. Energy-rich Scotland, as we all like to say on the SNP Benches, has the energy but does not yet have the power. As with so many issues, if the UK Government will not act, people in Scotland will ultimately decide to take power into their own hands through independence.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) and others who have contributed to the debate. I agree entirely with their comments and sentiments. I want to comment on two aspects: “self-disconnection” and prepayment meters.
I am a child of the ’60s. Families of that era will all remember, because they were universal, the strictures to switch off lights and the directions to ensure that every appliance was switched off unless, like a fridge, it required to remain on. “Self-disconnection” was just never mentioned; that has arisen only in the energy crisis. Let us be clear: it is a euphemism that masks something that is frankly quite appalling.
We have had other such euphemisms. The phrase “legitimate targets” has been used when civilians, civil servants, part-time police officers—usually farmers doing it in their spare time—or even customs officers have been murdered by terrorists. Describing them as “legitimate targets” takes away the horror of it. We see it even from Governments: we have had illegal wars with “collateral damage”. No, sorry: it was not collateral damage. It was the murder of families going to prayer, to a wedding or wherever else.
Now we have “self-disconnection”. It sounds very benign: who could possibly disagree with self-disconnection? Where is the harm in self-disconnection, if somebody chooses to manage their budget in that way? What we are really talking about when we use the phraseology of “self-disconnection” is the financial circumstances imposed on people by the cost of living crisis and the energy price rises, which are all within the control and the domain of a Government who are causing hardship—albeit that people are doing it themselves because they have literally no alternative. We have to move on from “self-disconnection”. This is a Government choice that has to be changed and has to be addressed.
Let me move on to prepayment meters. The cold snap that we are living through is affecting everybody. There will not be anybody who possesses a smart meter who will not be looking at it with some surprise. Many will be looking with horror, and some with abject misery, at just what their bill shows as the meter rises before their very eyes.
Let us be clear. It is not simply a question of heating, which is fundamental during the cold snap at the moment, nor is it simply about the question that is always posed about the insidious choice that people have between heating and eating. It is also about access to power. If someone is on electricity and they have to self-disconnect, as the euphemism has it, that will also affect their ability to have the fridge on. Maintaining a fridge allows people to buy food more cheaply and keep it for longer, which affects quality of life. People who want to wash their clothes—the person going to their employment who wants to look smart, the mother who wants to ensure that her children are not picked on at school—are not able to turn on their washing machine, because anybody with a smart meter knows how fast it ratchets up when they put the washing machine on.
It goes beyond even that. Access to power provides people with access to a phone or an iPad to allow their child to improve themselves. People require access to a phone to obtain employment; on some occasions, perversely, they may even require it to top up their prepayment meter. If they cannot even get access to a phone, how can they deal with that?
As other hon. Members have mentioned, access to power also fundamentally affects life. There are people who require power for their health. The fundamental concern is dialysis: the numbers are few, but there should be no basis on which anybody with a health requirement should be required to have a prepayment meter. I know that word has been put about that that is not normally what happens, but we all know from the charities that it does. That has to change.
What are the numbers that we are dealing with? We are not talking about a handful of individuals. In Scotland, there are 500,000 prepayment meters, which equates to almost a fifth of our people. The proportion is slightly less in the United Kingdom as a whole: it is 4 million there. We are not talking about the odd person in the odd street. We are talking about whole areas that are certainly in multiple deprivation and are being forced into this. That has to be dealt with.
Smart meters should be liberated. Technology is meant to advance our society. In many instances, it has done so; access to the internet has been beneficial, even though social media has a downside, as we all know. But 13% of smart meters are now on a prepayment tariff. That is simply unacceptable: it is bringing in a wrong, and it is perpetuating a wrong. Technology that should simplify the system and make it fairer is making it worse. No smart meter should be going on to a prepayment tariff.
I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) that the issue is not prepayment meters per se, but the higher standing charges and higher tariff that apply. An argument could be made that there is a need for prepayment meters. Private landlords really do want them, and I can understand that in those circumstances they are acceptable. Some public landlords would also prefer them; that, in itself, is not an issue. Some people would even prefer them so that they can manage their own budget; I might advise or counsel them against that, but it is an option that they should be able to take if they so wish, after hearing such advice. What is entirely unacceptable is the higher standing charges and higher tariff that apply. It is simply perverse that those who have least and are most vulnerable, which invariably includes people on prepayment meters, should pay more. That must end.
I have spoken to the major utility companies. Previously, with prepayment meters, they used to bung everything to Utilita, but now that we are moving on to smart meters it is all going much wider across the board. The companies accept that it would be perfectly reasonable and easily possible, with the technology we have, to change everybody to the same tariff. This is a separate issue for another day, but actually we should have a social tariff of the kind that applies in much of Europe and should apply to the poorest and most vulnerable here. There certainly should be no increased tariff for those with prepayment meters. It can be done with the current technology. At most, it would mean a very modest increase for the rest of us on credit. That is the maximum issue that would be faced by the companies that provide it. If that has to be, so be it. I am my brother’s keeper as we come to the festive period. We have a taxation system in which those who have most pay most, and if it means a very minor increase for those on credit, so be it. There are other ways that we can remedy it, such as through windfall taxes. That is what has to be done.
This euphemism of “self-disconnection” has to be killed once and for all. That is not a phrase we should accept. It is enforced austerity, poverty, misery and sometimes even death. We have to ensure that higher standing charges and higher tariffs are ended for those on prepayment meters. It can be done—it is within the scope of Ofgem. I have asked Ofgem, and it says that it is a creature of statute; it can only act on the basis of a ministerial direction. How do we end the scandal of a higher standing charge and a higher prepayment tariff? The Minister writes a letter now to Ofgem and says, “Change it.” Ofgem would then invoke it, and this would be solved. I urge the Minister to do that.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to follow the passionate speech by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), and I could not agree with him more. Despite our constituencies being so different, there are a lot of similarities, because in Hornsey and Wood Green, we have far too many people who are doing it tough this winter and are stuck on these dreadful prepayment meters, where the standing charges seem to change overnight without any advice and the tariffs are particularly high. Members across the House have emphasised the social inequity of this situation.
I pay tribute to the chief executive of the citizens advice bureau in my constituency, Mr Daniel Blake, and all his volunteers, who do an enormously positive job to help people in their hour of need. I pay tribute to my constituency caseworkers and all those throughout the House who work tirelessly day and night to assist our constituents when they have no heating, hot water or electricity. That is increasingly common, despite the fact that we have had sub-zero temperatures for at least 10 days now. I also pay tribute to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), and his team, who do an excellent job in briefing MPs on the situation with prepayment meters and are trying to research and provide up-to-the-minute advice for our constituents.
I broadly want to mention the dreadful customer service. I offered to assist my constituency caseworker with some work this week, because she was rather snowed under. It took 55 minutes for E.ON to pick up the phone, and this is probably what a lot of our constituents are experiencing; because they are at the bottom of the pile, they do not get heard. Other constituents have written to me telling me that they have not yet received their energy rebate vouchers. Since October, my constituents should have been receiving their £66 per month to help with soaring bills, yet they have not had any help. One of my constituents told me:
“I have been trying to get my voucher, with no success. I have tried calling British Gas several times and have been on the phone for hours but no one picks up. I have no other way to tell them that I have tried. I am now worried I will lose this voucher!! We are entering December now.”
This is in sub-zero temperatures. I have written to the energy companies about this, and I am still awaiting a response. The MP hotline is also failing to respond on time. We know that some of the most vulnerable people in our society use prepayment meters, and many are having to pay more for their heating and pay back any debt.
In fact, the cost of energy is not just an issue for those who are on prepayment meters. I noticed in yesterday’s press that there is even an MP who is feeling so out of pocket that he has had to claim over £3,000 from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority because he is not able to afford his energy bill. This is obviously affecting a great many people. I would imagine that with our income, we are in a slightly better position than others. I will not mention this person’s name, because I have not checked with his office. This is a wide-ranging issue facing many in society, but the people we should be worried about in terms of the public health implications are, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and others have said, people who either cannot reach their prepayment meter to adjust it or who have significant disabilities.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister says about the vouchers, because it has been well covered in the press and I hope it has been the subject of discussions with the private companies. He traditionally has been a great champion of consumers, and I hope he has not lost that zeal since he got into the bureaucracy; I am sure he has not and is just as passionate. I am sure that he listened to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) and will take immediate action this afternoon, so that we can all go and have our Christmas break knowing that our constituents will not be left at Christmas and new year dealing with suppliers who fail to pick up the telephone, MPs’ staff pulling their hair out because they are not getting replies through the MP hotline, or standing charges that flip up without any advice at all.
As many will be aware, energy prices have soared in the last year. One constituent told me:
“It’s impossible to understand how families will manage to find thousands of pounds extra a year and the anxiety throughout the country is almost palpable. My rent (private sector) will go up significantly and I will almost certainly have to move as a result”.
People on prepayment meters have to pay a daily standing charge, and their electric and gas costs are significantly higher. To give one example, I received a text saying that it cost £12 for a 20-minute use of hot water—that is for four young students who are trying to survive, have their showers and get themselves ready for their studies. Extrapolated over a 12-month period, that is over £4,300 just for gas, which powers the heating. This is clearly completely unacceptable and desperately needs an urgent review.
I am extremely concerned about the high cost of prepayment meters and the impact on our constituents. Another constituent told me:
“I’m a single pensioner living alone and I’m honestly scared by what I’m reading on my prepaid meter. Prices aren’t going to come down in the future—they’ll only rise”.
What is being done to help our pensioners, many of whom are in damp and cold homes all day? We saw the tragic loss of life of a tiny child to damp and cold in the last month. We must redouble our efforts to put more pressure on the energy companies, so that they take immediate action for the most vulnerable on prepayment meters who are paying over the odds and in advance for energy that they have not even used.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making some excellent points, and this debate is incredibly important, which is why I signed the original motion. Does she agree that it is wrong for people who are already in arrears and need help with their bills to have to pay about 2% more, which I think is estimated at £84 between October and December?
Catherine West
The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that point. He lives on the cold Gloucester plain, which can get very chilly and snowy at this time of year, so he will understand the desperate anxiety that many people in this situation are feeling. I hope the Minister will take urgent action on this, because it is not a situation that affects people in only one part of the country. It is often people in privately rented accommodation, and these prepayment metres are literally taking all the money they have.
I want to briefly mention the inherited debt problem, which some Members will be aware of. When a tenancy changes, new tenants move in and inherit the debt from the tenants who were there before. In some cases, they put their £10 in thinking that it will keep them going for a couple of days, not realising that they are carrying the debt of the tenants before. That £10 then disappears, and they find themselves having to put in £50 or £60—which they may not have readily accessible, given all the costs that go with a new tenancy—and negotiate with a completely new provider. There has to be a way of regulating that more and getting the regulator to be much more proactive and agile in these situations, so that we do not have this inherited debt problem and new tenants do not have to suddenly find hundreds of pounds just so that they can switch on their heating. I hope that the Minister will address that problem in his remarks.
Will the Minister also comment on the practical difficulty when a supplier changes? I am aware of a constituency case in which service was very disrupted when a prepayment meter switched from npower to E.ON, which eventually got on top of the mess it inherited from npower, but the tenants had a very difficult time with only basic information. What can be done to clarify and explain the enormously costly standing charges and unit cost prices currently being charged to those in the most vulnerable housing in the UK?
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) for securing this debate. She rightly said she is looking for action, and action now, rather than self-awareness, but she also said she is hopeful, verging on confident, that the Government will take action. I do not share her confidence, but hopefully the Minister will prove me wrong.
I also commend the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) for their contributions.
Obviously, I disagree with the inequity of higher standing charges being applied to people on prepayment meters. We have heard several times how people with disabilities already pay more just to get through their day-to-day life, and they suffer from paying these higher charges, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East and the hon. Member for Glasgow North paid tribute to Marie Curie and its “Dying without Dignity” campaign. It is heartbreaking to hear the personal example of the friends of my hon. Gentleman. I hope Mel and Tom get all the support they need. The hon. Member for East Lothian completely destroyed the euphemism of self-disconnection, and the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green covered a range of topics and constituency issues.
As well as paying tribute to hon. Members, I pay tribute to the organisations that work tirelessly on these matters, including the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, National Energy Action, Energy Action Scotland and Citizens Advice Scotland. They all agree that forced prepayment meters, especially during this cost of living crisis, will create more problems for the most vulnerable and for society.
As we have heard, the reality is that people are automatically disconnected once they reach £10 of credit. Fuel Poverty Action says:
“Imposition of a pre-payment meter is disconnection by the back door. When you can’t top up the meter everything clicks off, regardless of whether you are old, ill, or have a newborn baby.”
Forced prepayment meters mean that people who are already struggling are put on a system where they have to ration their energy and can be automatically disconnected when they reach their credit limit. They are also more likely to have a cold, damp home, with the consequent long-term health implications and the immediate heating or eating dilemma.
It is estimated that 19% of houses in the UK are damp, but the figure increases to nearly a third, 31%, of houses with a prepayment meter. In other words, a household on a prepayment meter is 65% more likely to live in a damp house compared with the average baseline.
Health conditions associated with living in a damp house have a consequence for our already stretched national health services. That reality is confirmed by figures from YouGov’s “Warm this Winter” campaign, which show that 51% of prepayment customers have health conditions or disabilities.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow North said, we have to accept that, on one level, the majority of customers on prepayment meters have chosen this as a way of managing their cash flow and energy use, but it makes no sense that the most vulnerable pay higher standing charges and are therefore at more risk of being cut off because of the £10 credit limit.
Research by Utilita indicates that as many as 14% of the 4.5 million prepayment meter households—that is 630,000 households—did not actively choose to be on these tariffs but were forced on to them. The number will dramatically increase during this cost of living crisis unless the Government take steps to ban forced switching to prepayment meters.
A recent investigation for i revealed that energy firms have secured almost 500,000 court warrants to install prepayment meters in the homes of customers in debt since the end of lockdown. That is an astonishing number, and Ofgem and the Government need to get a grip. Further freedom of information requests reveal that 187,000 such applications were made in the first six months of 2022 alone. There is a real concern that the courts are now rubber-stamping warrants to install prepayment meters.
Although I have been talking about prepayment meters, the roll-out of smart meters means that customers can be forced on to prepayment mode without the need for a warrant or for the meter to be physically changed, as they were at one time. Again, I support the End Fuel Poverty Coalition’s call for a ban on switching customers to a prepayment meter under warrant and a ban on switching customers’ smart meters to prepayment mode without their active, informed consent.
The stark reality is that the most vulnerable are being forced on to prepayment meters. They then enter a cycle of unaffordability, energy rationing, disconnection and damp housing. To compound matters, many are missing out on the Government’s support package, which makes this pernicious cycle even worse.
Caroline Abrahams, charity director of Age UK, says recent Government figures suggest that more than 40% of vouchers sent to prepayment meter households are yet to be redeemed. She expressed her concern at the estimate that at least 150,000 older households relying on old prepayment meters will miss out on the £400. This is completely unacceptable, so I ask the Minister to advise the House on what the Government are doing to ensure that the most vulnerable are able to access and use their vouchers or, if they cannot, to get some form of credit on their account.
It is unconscionable to continue charging those on prepayment meters, who are more likely to be on lower incomes, more than customers who pay for their energy by direct debit. The energy companies may argue that prepayment systems cost more to administrate, which is probably true of collecting payments, but the additional cost should not be carried by those least able to afford it. Access to energy is literally a life or death scenario, and we need to remove this standing charge inequity.
Let me illustrate the difficulty. I know someone who chooses to be on a prepayment meter. He did not use gas at all over the summer, but when he wanted to turn on the heating at the start of winter, he had to pay £70 to clear the standing charge debt built up over the summer. He could afford to do that, so it was fine, but others who rationed their energy over the summer will not be so lucky.
A briefing from Energy UK confirms that, under licence requirements following Ofgem’s measures, suppliers should identify prepayment meter customers who are self-disconnecting and offer short-term support through emergency and “friendly hours” credit, as well as offering additional support credit to prepayment meter customers in vulnerable situations. In my example of a person having to pay £70 to clear the debt accrued over the summer, the supplier did not make contact to check whether there was any vulnerability or whether assistance was required. Ofgem and the Government need to ensure such steps are taken in the here and now. They must ensure that suppliers give such assistance, as per their licence obligations.
The Government may talk up the energy price guarantee, and the billions of pounds of support allocated by that package sounds good on paper, but the reality is that, even with the current unit caps, it is estimated that average bills will cost £2,500, or £3,500 in Scotland. National Energy Action estimates there are 6.7 million households in fuel poverty, which will rise by 1.7 million in April when the average bill rises to £3,000. Nearly a third of households in Great Britain will be in fuel poverty come April.
The reality is that the energy price guarantee is no guarantee at all. Average bills are much higher in Scotland, even though, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North said, we generate the bulk of the UK’s renewable energy. It is completely unfair that Scotland generates this energy, yet Scottish people are struggling to pay their bills.
I completely support a ban on forcing customers on to prepayment systems, and the higher charges applied to prepayment systems have to be abolished, and abolished now. It is time for a proper social tariff. I accept that the Government have confirmed that they are looking at implementing one, but I fear that that will take too long and that this will, invariably, be kicked into the long grass and left to the next Government.
I also support tiered tariffs, similar to the Dubai slab tariff. That would mean that those with the lowest energy usage got a significantly lower tariff. I would extend that to those classed as vulnerable and then have incremental tariffs based on usage. In general, therefore, those who used more energy and could afford to pay more would do so, as per affordability. Such a system would also incentivise demand management, which is good for the system overall.
The reality is that more action is needed on this now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East said. I look forward to what the Minister will say, but I find it strange that a Treasury Minister will wind up rather than a Minister for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which I would have thought would be all over this.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) on securing this debate—it is essential that we have it—and on her tenacity in also introducing a ten-minute rule Bill. I also congratulate her on her optimism; apparently, she really does think that the Government might do something about this issue in the near future. I wish I shared her optimism.
Anne McLaughlin
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. I should probably clarify that I was always brought up to believe that if someone thinks and acts positively, they will get positive results. I also think, when I am asking for something as important as this, that it is probably best not to start off by being hyper-critical. I will wait to see what the Minister says and I might change my view, but I think that positive thinking will lead to positive results.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the hon. Member for emphasising her optimism; let us see how we get on this afternoon.
Hon. Members have added to the debate positively by setting out where we are on prepaid meters and a number of issues relating to their present operation, as well as where we need to go for the future. About 15% of UK households are on smart meters for electricity and 14% are on prepaid meters for gas. That may well have gone up since those figures were last calculated. As hon. Members have mentioned, about half a million warrants to place people on to prepaid meters have been successfully passed through the courts since the beginning of the covid pandemic in 2021, so the figure is likely to be higher.
The situation is, frankly, a snapshot of the way in which the have-nots in our society are treated, as opposed to the haves. We need to keep that centrally in mind, because overwhelmingly, a substantial number of people in vulnerable circumstances, on lower incomes and in poorer housing are on prepaid meters, whereas people who are not in those circumstances have accounts. As the hon. Member set out, that means that there is a two-tier arrangement on energy debt. On one side, those with accounts can manage and work their way through very large amounts of debt. On the other side, those on prepaid meters simply cannot do that, for the simple reason that as soon as they go over the credit limit, they are out—their meter has, effectively, been switched off—and they have no more energy. Let us be clear: from the point of view of energy supply companies, that is the most efficient way to get rid of the problem that they might face, under other circumstances, of having to pursue customers for debt. Companies can simply put people on prepaid meters and they then self-disconnect, ending the problem for the energy supply companies.
As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and other hon. Members said, in a recent court case in the north of England, about 496 warrants were agreed in a very short period for people to go on to a prepaid meter despite what they wanted to happen. Some people like the way that prepaid meters operate, in terms of balancing the family budget, but I would suggest that they are in a minority. Most people are on prepaid meters because they have to be and their circumstances do not allow them to do otherwise. However, it is not really the case that the courts can just rubber stamp warrants. It would be very difficult to rubber-stamp 496 warrants in three minutes—that was the speed at which the warrants were recently dealt with in that particular court case. A conveyor belt of warrants for prepaid meters is currently going through the courts, adding up to the enormous figure that I mentioned.
As hon. Members have said, there is already a differential with prepaid meters. The have-nots pay more and the haves pay less on tariffs, standing charges and so on. That is remarkable because, prepaid meters are a very good thing for the cash flow of energy companies and for getting money in up front, which I would have thought would lead to lower rather than higher charges for prepaid meters.
Catherine West
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is yet another example of rip-off Britain?
Dr Whitehead
That is right. We are allowing a group of customers to be ripped off much more easily than other people in the energy sphere. It is good that we have shone a light on that this afternoon, because this needs urgent action. For the short term, I hope that the Government will say that there should be a moratorium on further warrants to put people on to prepaid meters, at least for duration of the energy crisis. That would at least mean that, as hon. Members have already said, we would not be putting more people into a situation in which they face impossible choices in their household management. In a number of instances, people literally cannot reactivate their systems when they have been disconnected, or have self-disconnected. They simply do not have the wherewithal to get back on the prepaid meter horse, as it were, because—among other things—the standing charges continue to ratchet up.
People are also paying grossly inflated prices when they are not the direct bill payer. I am thinking of people in park homes and in various other circumstances where the landlord has a meter-charge arrangement that bears no relation to what that should be, were the money to go into the meter. So, given the energy crisis, there are a great many areas in which the Government must take action in the near future in recognition of the fact that people with prepayment meters are at the coalface when it comes to energy poverty.
Anne McLaughlin
May I ask, for the purpose of clarification, whether Labour supports at least a moratorium on so-called self-disconnection, so that no one with a prepayment meter can be disconnected, at least over this winter?
Dr Whitehead
Yes, indeed. I said it a few moments ago, and I am happy to repeat it. That, I think, is the minimum that needs to be done at this point, given the crisis faced by people with prepayment meters. However, as has already been pointed out this afternoon, a number of other actions need to be taken in the longer term to ensure that people with prepayment meters are at least on a level playing field when it comes to their energy supplies, and I hope the Government will think about that very seriously. There are a number of ideas that Labour could offer for how that long-term level playing field might be achieved, and I should be happy to work with the Government to bring it about. However, what is most important is for the Government to understand and recognise the present dire situation, and for the Minister to confirm this afternoon that they will take the necessary action to put it right so that people are no longer in such a desperate position—in so many circumstances —and are, at least, not in a “have/have not” situation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)
Let me begin by thanking the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) for the positive way in which she introduced this important and sensitive debate. Like her, I have always adopted the principle that we get more with sugar than we do with salt, so I do whatever I can to protect the customers about whom she is concerned, particularly those with prepayment meters. As she said, the problems among that cohort will become worse during the winter, notably the cost of living crisis and the cold weather—nowhere more than in Scotland, she said, although north Yorkshire also gets fairly cold at this time of year, as, indeed, do other parts of the country: my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) mentioned parts of his own constituency where people are being affected.
The Government entirely share the hon. Lady’s concerns. It is of course important to bear in mind suggestions, such as those made in today’s debate, of ways in which to keep our rules and regulations and processes under review to ensure that these vulnerable people are protected. However, we are able to provide robust protections and financial support for people in those circumstances, and I shall say more about that shortly.
The problems of debt create great anxiety, and that is another element that requires consideration. At times in the past I have been in debt, both personally and in my business life, and I know how anxious it can make people and their families. For some years I co-chaired the all-party parliamentary group on poverty, whose aim was to reduce the impacts of poverty and which considered matters such as the poverty premium, which is relevant to the issue of prepayment meters.
Ours is not the only country that has these meters; they are used around the world, with the purpose of managing debt. The one thing that people in circumstances such as this need to be able to do is budget properly. I think it was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) that prepayment meters have a role in helping people to budget, and can reduce the chances of their getting into debt or their debt increasing, making their position even worse.
Catherine West
I think the whole House would accept that advice on debt and debt management is crucial, but when a student household is spending £12 for 20 minutes of hot water, which, extrapolated over 12 months, is £4,300—and that is not even a dual fuel bill; it is a single bill—there is a problem, and it has nothing to do with debt management.
Kevin Hollinrake
That is definitely an issue. We need to ensure that people have access to fair deals, and I shall say more about that in a moment.
As was acknowledged by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), one of the difficulties involved in not using a prepayment meter is the fact that the only alternative would be court action, which could potentially increase the debt and affect someone’s credit rating, which is the least desirable outcome.
Anne McLaughlin
The Minister seems to be arguing that if the energy companies have to take people to court, it will cost those people more than having their prepayment meters cut off. The point is that they will not be taken to court immediately. Someone like me can wait for a year while the energy company is trying to work out some plan. Energy companies are more likely to work with the person concerned to find a way for them to pay their bills than to take them to court straight away.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady has raised an important point about people being treated equally. In these circumstances, people will often have been through the processes that she has described. They will have been on normal payment terms, and there will have been a debt recognition and reconciliation process that may have ended up with people either adopting a prepayment meter voluntarily or, as a last resort, having one forced upon them. There are mechanisms, which I will explain in a minute, whereby people are granted abeyance and forbearance.
In the case of many households, if debt were allowed to spiral out of control—and that is not generally voluntary; it is more often due to matters beyond the control of those households, and it is important that we provide support for them—the suppliers themselves could find themselves in a perilous position. These are commercial suppliers of electricity and gas. In fact, this could force out of the market suppliers who specialise in cases such as this. The last thing we want is a lack of provision for people in these circumstances.
These prepayment meters have moved on from the ones that we used to have. The modern smart meters are far easier to top up remotely, and make it easier to check balances.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous.
My constituency office is being contacted by a great many people who have still not received their prepayment vouchers from the energy suppliers, but are receiving letters from the suppliers telling them that if they do not use the vouchers by January they will be cancelled, which would of course push those people further into debt. What are the Government doing to ensure that they receive the vouchers and do not lose the money to which they are entitled?
Kevin Hollinrake
Other Members have made that important point, and I will come to it, but I had better make some progress, because you asked me to finish in about four minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker, which I shall endeavour to do.
We believe that there is a role for prepayment meters. Ofgem rules already require energy suppliers to offer a prepayment service only when it is safe and reasonably practicable to do so, and that applies whether a meter is smart or traditional. There are clear obligations on energy suppliers regarding customers in payment difficulty, and a prescribed process for occasions on which a warrant is required. That point was raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East.
There are clear expectations for suppliers in respect of the steps to be taken before they instal a prepayment meter owing to debt, or switching a smart meter from credit to prepayment mode. Those steps include conversations to discuss debt repayment, budget management and energy efficiency measures, and referrals to debt advisers and charities. Before a prepayment meter is chosen as the debt repayment pathway, its safety must be assessed, as well as the customer’s ability to pay. Suppliers must give their customers seven days’ notice before installing a prepayment meter or switching a smart meter to prepayment mode. Ofgem recently published a regulatory expectations letter, in which it set out its expectation that suppliers will ensure that prepayment meters are safe and reasonably practicable in every case.
I would like to highlight some of the circumstances in which it is not deemed safe to have a prepayment meter, which include having specific disabilities or illnesses, or having children under five, as has been set out. Indeed, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) raised that point. It is absolutely right that we provide support for those who are most in need.
The hon. Member also raised the issue of social tariffs, which were introduced in 2008 as part of a voluntary agreement between the Government and energy suppliers. They were replaced by the current mandated warm home discount scheme in 2011. This has improved outcomes by providing consistent and transparent benefits, and by utilising data matching to improve targeting. Clearly, it is important that we continue to review our current provisions and see what else might be done to help people in those circumstances.
Alan Brown
The Minister almost seems to be making an argument that the warm home discount scheme has been more successful than the social tariffs. Why then has the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy confirmed that it is considering revisiting social tariffs? I do support that, but he seems to be making a contrary argument.
Kevin Hollinrake
I do not think it is a contrary argument. We should always look to improve our rules. We believe it is an improvement on the past scheme, but there may be further improvements we can make. That is the right iterative process to take.
Richard Graham
On action, what does the Minister think can be done on social tariffs?
Kevin Hollinrake
That is a very good point. We are happy to listen to evidence from right across the House on different things that might be done, but clearly the most important thing is to ensure that support is targeted at those most in need. If there are better ways to do that, then we should certainly be listening. I would be very happy to talk to my hon. Friend at any point about any suggestions he might have. I know these issues are very important to him, so I am very keen to continue that conversation.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am sorry, but I am already past my time. I will have to conclude.
As Members will know, the Government have stepped in through various different mechanisms, including the energy price guarantee, energy bills support scheme and the energy bill relief scheme for businesses, with about £75 billion of taxpayer support for those areas.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green talked about inherited debt, which is a very interesting point. We have not had evidence of that. If she has evidence of that and could write to me, I would be very interested in taking that up for her.
Before I conclude, I want to touch on standing charges, which is a very important point. We want to ensure that the market is as competitive as possible, so that people can access fair deals and we do not get the poverty premium that I mentioned earlier. Under Ofgem rules, charges must reflect the cost of delivering the service. It can be the case that there is a higher cost to suppliers for operating supplies for those on prepayment meters. It is important that we continue to look at that to see whether there might be better ways to ensure those customers are treated more fairly.
To conclude, the Government are listening to consumers and industry. We are providing a substantive support package via the energy bills support scheme and the energy price guarantee. Ofgem, the regulator, has set robust regulatory protections for consumers on prepayment meters. We are committed to providing the support and protections necessary to ensure that consumers and industry will thrive in the decades to come. [Interruption.]
I will conclude by talking about the vouchers. There is a problem in terms of vouchers. About 60% of people have managed to gain support through vouchers. We have written to suppliers on this particular matter. We need to improve the communication between suppliers and customers to ensure that take-up is higher. We believe that the take-up will improve over future weeks, but we are definitely keeping that under review and are keen to ensure all that support reaches households where it is intended to do so.
Anne McLaughlin
I thank everybody who participated in the debate and who signed the application. I also thank my team—it was my office manager, Margaret Young, who first brought this issue to my attention. I do not think she realised how much it was going spiral. I want to thank all my team, most of whom are sitting in the Gallery today: Michael Bannister, Robyn Hendry, Ruairi Kelly, Kilian Riley, Niamh McGeechan and Caitlin Burgess. The reason I am thanking them is because they have all got involved in this. They have all helped to develop this campaign—and it is a campaign, because this is not the end of it. I have not heard answers to my questions today, I am afraid to say, and I am really concerned.
One of the things I am concerned about is that the Minister says that we cannot allow debt to spiral out of control. In that case, we should all be paying our bills in advance as well, because our debt could spiral out of control. It does not, so why can everybody not simply be treated the same way?
The last point I will make is on processes. The Minister talked about how different processes have to be gone through, but there is no consistency of approach—Ofgem has said that there is no consistency of approach. The whole thing is a mess. There is so much that needs to be sorted out, so I will keep asking. I will ask every day, and I will not just ask the Minister.
I am going to ask for at least a moratorium over the Christmas and then, when we come back in January, we can start to sort out this mess of prepayment meters. We cannot go back to our warm homes now and say, “Bye, bye. I hope you don’t get cut off, but you probably will because you can’t afford to pay your bills.” We have to do something. A moratorium for now is the least we can do.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises that prepayment meter customers, who pay for their usage in advance, are not afforded the same rights when in energy debt as customers who pay in arrears, such as those who pay in direct debit; understands that a prepayment meter customer is automatically disconnected when they exceed just £10 of debt; acknowledges that, in contrast, those who pay in arrears are afforded time and support to resolve their debts before action is taken to disconnect; is deeply concerned that so called self-disconnection of prepayment meter customers will see the most vulnerable in our society left without heat, light and facilities to cook and wash over the coming winter; and strongly urges the Government to outlaw self-disconnection to ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable customers are not left without basic energy provision.
West Coast Main Line: Services
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered rail transport services for communities served by the West Coast Main Line.
I am grateful to those from both sides of the House who are here today for this important debate on the west coast main line. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. It is on a cross-party issue, and the irony is not lost on me that many Members are only here because they could not get a train back yesterday.
The west coast main line rail service has been the subject of some debate in this House already over recent months. Since Avanti became the franchise holder, taking over from Virgin in December 2019, services have been cut, cancellations are rife, staff morale is at rock bottom, and passengers and communities are suffering. Many have voiced their concerns and dissatisfaction with the service that Avanti has been running in questions, letters and conversations with Ministers. I have called this debate because this issue is important. It is important to our communities that we recognise and raise the issues we are all facing as a result of Avanti’s substandard service, and that our constituents know that we are working hard to keep the matter on the Government’s radar. My own community of Ynys Môn has been particularly badly hit, and I would like to give the House some background on why this matter is so important to my constituents.
Holyhead, as a port, has been a key point in the transport of mail from London to Ireland since at least the last quarter of the 16th century. In the early 1800s, the demand for faster delivery meant that mail started to divert via the port of Liverpool, which already had a rail link. It was the introduction of a new rail line in 1848 that saved Holyhead from becoming a backwater. From that point, Holyhead offered the fastest route for mail to Ireland. It was the speed of rail transportation that maintained Holyhead’s route as an important port and town. It remains the second busiest ro-ro port in the UK, with many passengers coming in by train and onward by ferry to and from Ireland.
As a terminus, the railway also brings Holyhead and the rest of Ynys Môn much-needed local employment. The island has one of the lowest GVAs—gross value added—in the UK, and Holyhead is home to some of the most deprived communities in Wales. Before rail was privatised, many local people worked for British Rail, either on the trains or as part of Sealink ferry services. Some are still employed by Avanti, Transport for Wales and Stena Line. Our local shops and services provide for passengers coming in on trains, bringing extra income into the town. Direct trains to London also offer an opportunity for local people growing up in rural north Wales to access the cultural and historic attractions of London, and experience the heady excitement of the big city.
So for Holyhead in particular, the railway is not just something that passes through the town. It has been part of the very fabric of life for 175 years. No one expected this way of life to suffer such a blow from the change of franchise. We all understand that our rail operators, including Avanti, went through very challenging times during the pandemic, and we understand that during it, it was necessary to cut the number of trains running at that time. The problem is that Avanti not only has not picked its game back up, but has allowed its services to deteriorate.
Our rail timetable has been shattered, with direct services between London and Holyhead hacked. Local ferry passenger numbers have been challenged by the lack of through train services from London. This has also stopped my constituents from accessing the cultural, political and historical collateral of the UK’s capital city. Those with mobility needs or travelling with children are particularly disadvantaged by cuts in direct services. Local people who commute from north Wales to other parts of the UK have been severely affected.
Some hon. Members will know from my recent Adjournment debate that Ynys Môn recently experienced another connectivity disaster, when the Welsh Government put in place an emergency closure on the Menai suspension bridge, having allowed the bridge to fall into disrepair. The bridge is one of only two physical links between the island and the mainland. As one constituent who moved to Anglesey to run his business told me,
“with the whole range of transport problems affecting Ynys Mon and the adjoining mainland I am starting to regret my decision to base the core of my business here and I suspect that many others share my view.”
Prior to the pandemic, the Trainline website claimed:
“It is possible to travel from Holyhead to London Euston without having to change trains. There are nine direct trains from Holyhead to London Euston each day.”
But in February this year, we had just one direct train running each way between Holyhead and London. When I wrote to Avanti to raise my concerns, its response was:
“We are currently working closely with Government, Network Rail and industry partners to update our timetable which we hope to move forward with in the next few weeks—this will include the reintroduction of further services to North Wales.”
In June, Avanti said that we would have six direct trains a day in north Wales. That did not materialise, and by August it was axing trains across the whole network and introduced a significantly reduced timetable. As Transport Focus put it,
“The primary aim of introducing a reduced timetable is to ensure a reliable service is delivered to passengers so they can travel with greater certainty without the frustration and inconvenience caused by short-notice cancellations.”
However, in the second half of this year, complaints that I received about Avanti’s rail service from both passengers and staff increased by over 600%. A recent report from Transport Focus found that 28% of Avanti passengers said that they had experienced a change, cancellation or delay to their journey. Just over four in 10 passengers rated Avanti’s communication about delays as good. A quarter of Avanti passengers said that the level of crowding was poor.
For months, Avanti’s own travel tracker has shown a plethora of delayed and cancelled trains, many of which it has blamed on staff shortages, broken down trains or trains diverted to cover previously cancelled services. Data from the Office of Road and Rail shows that, between July and September, even though it had already removed thousands of services from its schedules, less than half of Avanti West Coast trains ran on time. One in eight was cancelled. That is nearly twice as many cancellations as the UK average. Many of us will recognise the reality of the situation all too well. Travelling with Avanti has become a lottery. A good, pain-free, on-schedule journey is such a novelty that my team celebrate when it happens.
We have been told by Avanti West Coast that the service will return to pre-pandemic frequency. However, a look at its timetable released this week for 11 December to 20 May next year shows just five direct trains each way between Holyhead and London Monday to Saturday, and three on a Sunday. The timetable for today, sitting as it does immediately after a strike day, offers four direct trains from London to Holyhead, with three making the return journey. That was this morning. Even I will admit that five, four or even three direct trains is better than the one we had earlier this year, but planning journeys is still a nightmare. Although Avanti has apparently committed to give us reliable timetables six to eight weeks in advance of travel, when I looked earlier this week, its website still showed no train timetable for some dates in January.
What worries most of us now is not what it says on the timetable but what happens in reality. After months of listening to Avanti’s promises and then suffering when it fails to deliver, I do not view the timetable with a great deal of optimism. How has this come to pass? What has turned a once reasonably reliable train service into what we have today?
Like other operators, Avanti was impacted by the pandemic. It has also been impacted by the nationwide RMT strikes and actions by other unions. However, its problems largely stem from staffing issues. For years, train operators have used staff working overtime to keep all their services running. They have relied on workers doing extra shifts on their day off to help crew trains. Avanti is blaming its problems on staff withdrawing their support for this arrangement, but according to staff, Avanti’s actions since taking over the franchise have led to this point. It has cut staff without replacing them and reduced morale to such an extent that workers have stopped volunteering for extra shifts.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
On the hon. Lady’s point on staff, my understanding is that since Avanti took over the franchise, it has got rid of 175 catering roles. That is having an impact on the service provided on board in standard class as well as first class. The service that Avanti is providing is significantly worse than what Virgin, the previous franchise holder, provided.
Virginia Crosbie
I thank the hon. Member for that important intervention. He makes a clear point about the services that are being axed. They affect not only the people using the transport but those who are trying to work on the trains and offer a good service.
Mike Whelan, the general secretary of ASLEF, said earlier this year that Avanti
“does not employ enough drivers to deliver the services it has promised passengers it will run. In fact, the company itself has admitted that 400 trains a week are dependent on drivers working their rest days.”
Avanti says that it is working hard to address the problems by recruiting more staff. It says that by the end of December it will have 100 more drivers than in April. But Avanti staff are deeply unhappy and sceptical, as anyone who travels regularly will know.
Many Avanti staff have been working on the route for years. They moved to Avanti from Virgin when the franchise was changed. They have experience of working on the route when it was not perfect but at least functional. Earlier this month, the RMT carried out a survey of Avanti staff that showed that 92% of respondents are either not very confident or have no confidence at all in Avanti’s ability to deliver the improvements that it has been told to make to its services. More than 80% agree that their working lives have got harder since Avanti took over, there are not enough staff on the route and Avanti is mismanaging the workforce.
Avanti’s own staff rated service to passengers at just 22 on a scale of zero to 100. One respondent stated:
“the staffing issues started way before July. Jobs haven’t been backfilled for a long time”.
Another said,
“staff shortages have been an issue for months…Poor management of key contracts have made working for Avanti unpleasant and embarrassing.”
The survey details that frontline staff are on the receiving end of a high level of abuse from frustrated passengers. They say that management is chaotic, there is not enough information about services, and there are too few staff and too many last-minute shift changes. They say they feel disrespected, undervalued, demotivated, stressed and angry.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
My hon. Friend is making some very good points. Would she, for the record, agree that the staff who are there, despite feeling undervalued and demoralised, do a wonderful job in being cheerful, trying to be as upbeat as they can and delivering the best service they can in the face of such difficult conditions? The staff are doing their best in trying circumstances.
Virginia Crosbie
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Personally, I am looking forward to getting on that train today. Some of these people are my friends—they light up my life—they are important and they are trying to do an important job in challenging times.
As one staff member said:
“The company has been run into the ground by Avanti…and the frontline are the ones taking the brunt of it. In my 15 years’ service I have never seen such a shambles.”
From the passenger perspective, one constituent recently wrote:
“There is no shortage of people who want to use trains; ticketholders come from all walks of life and are prepared to pay for safe, comfortable and efficient journeys by rail. These services can and have been delivered at times but, overall, the Chester to Holyhead service is…a byword for rip-off rail.”
In October, despite requests from many of us to terminate the franchise, the Government granted Avanti an extension of six months to get its house in order. Two months on, we have a new timetable that no one, including the Avanti staff, believes is realistic, a service cancellation rate that has done nothing but increase over the past year, and a history of broken promises from Avanti. It has until March 2023 to sort this sorry mess out.
Avanti’s website calls the west coast main line:
“Britain’s premier long-distance railway, linking together towns and major cities to create a vital economic artery for the UK.”
It goes on to say that it is
“on a mission to run a railway that generates prosperity and pride, right across the nation…an iconic railway the country can be proud of”.
No one would be happier than me if it achieved that mission. My journey home takes four hours on a good day, and the thought of more miserable months waiting on cold platforms or rearranging meetings because of sudden service cancellations does not fill me with a warm glow of joy. So I am coming clean and admitting that, like so many of my constituents, I have a vested interest in Avanti getting it right.
Looking at the timetables for today, I have absolutely no idea what time I will get home to Holyhead tonight—or if at all. All I can see are the words in red: “Delayed”, “Delayed”, “Cancelled”, “Not available to buy” and “Delayed”. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the extension granted in October will be Avanti’s last chance, that it cannot keep blaming its failings on everything and everyone else and that, if we do not see significant improvements in service and a reliable road map to return the west coast main line to at least pre-pandemic levels by March, its franchise will be removed and the service put under the operator of last resort?
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I declare an interest and refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) on securing the debate. This is an issue that impacts hundreds of MPs, because the rail service that Avanti delivers connects us all.
I agree with the hon. Member’s closing remarks. If we were to think of a company that symbolised rip-off rail, Avanti would be the first to come to mind. It has a habit of blaming everyone when it comes to its failure. Poor management, expensive tickets, an unreliable service and trains that are not maintained or cleaned properly are all issues. I hope to cover some of them. I will not take too much of the House’s time.
My inbox is often full of people complaining about cancellations, uncertainty, lost business and students unable to go to their university or college because of the poor service provided by Avanti. It seems that one unifying factor around Avanti is that it is pretty much universally disliked. Whether passengers, businesses, staff members who work on its trains or those who supply the trains, everyone seems to have something to say about Avanti and it is almost always negative.
I know the Minister on a personal level and know that he is a hard-working Member of Parliament. A couple of weeks ago, I raised with him that TransPennine Express, which is experiencing similar problems on the network, is owned by FirstGroup, which owns 70% of the Avanti franchise. The Government should hold FirstGroup to account for the failures on Avanti, which are being replicated on TransPennine Express, because this is simply not good enough. It is not acceptable. I have tabled a number of written parliamentary questions on the subject. The fact is that Avanti has damaged the economy in my constituency as well as the wider north-west region.
In my intervention, I referred to the 175 catering roles that Avanti has axed, but there are even more problems when it comes to catering on trains. The equipment is often faulty, so passengers cannot pay with a card. Sometimes, they only take card and not cash—it depends on the train and what equipment there is.
The trains seem to be frequently understaffed. We have heard about the issues with drivers on Avanti. Having spoken to many people who work for Avanti West Coast, the reality is that senior management are viewed as toxic by members of staff. I prefer to travel by train rather than drive to London. My experience as a customer is almost all negative.
The debate is about west coast main line services, so I will not delve too much into ticket office closures, but my views are on record about ticket office closures and the support that those offices provide to people with mobility issues and those who might need extra help at a station. We need a wider debate next year about the value of ticket offices at railway stations.
A lot has been said about drivers and people who work on the trains, and I want to reference the “Justice for Cleaners” campaign. Last week I was outside the Department for Transport when shop stewards from the RMT handed in a letter to the Department regarding extremely low pay, long hours and the difficult jobs that cleaners do on the railway. Avanti does not have a good reputation. Those who have travelled on its trains will have seen that often they are not clean, they seem to be unhygienic and the toilets are in a terrible state.
During the pandemic, we all were happy to clap for cleaners and key workers, because they kept us safe and did a difficult job. Sadly, many cleaners across the world lost their lives during the pandemic because of the exposure they faced. Atalian Servest has the contract for Avanti West Coast. It is well known for low pay and long hours. A friend of mine—I would not like to name her—lives in my constituency, and I knew her son. Sadly he is not with us any more. She works as a cleaner on the railway, and I often bump into her on the journey from Westminster back to Stockport. We need to make sure that they get decent pay so that they do not have to rely on food banks. Research by the RMT shows that one in 10 railway cleaners are using food banks. One quarter of cleaners are skipping meals, and one in three are reliant on credit cards to survive. A shocking 84% of railway cleaners are struggling to make ends meet. Those figures are staggering.
A lot is said about collective bargaining, but if we look at the staffing model for the railways, we see that cleaners often tend to be some of the lowest-paid people. Inflation is at almost 11%, thanks to economic mismanagement by the Government, and those people are often on zero-hours contracts or low pay. We need to make sure that they are on a minimum of £15 an hour and get proper sick pay, travel facilities and a decent pension. It is not much to ask for in one of the richest economies in the world that people who clean our trains are paid a decent wage.
I noticed that earlier this week during Prime Minister’s questions, there was a question from a Conservative MP about the shocking state of the Avanti West Coast franchise. The Prime Minister said:
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the unacceptable deterioration in the quality of Avanti’s service.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 898.]
I am glad that the Prime Minister is aware of what is faced by the millions of people who have to travel on Avanti. I know that the Minister sent a comprehensive letter to MPs this afternoon. In my view, it does not go far enough, but I am grateful to him for that correspondence.
As I have the Minister’s attention, I highlight the fact that I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport on 29 November with a series of questions. I have not received a response. I have tabled a written question seeking a response, so I hope he can help me get a response to that letter.
I will finish on the point that the root cause of the failures with Avanti, but also with TransPennine Express and other rail companies, is privatisation. These firms prioritise profit extraction over public service and connectivity. Avanti has terrible customer service, and it prioritises profit extraction over fair pay for its staff and the people who work on its trains, such as cleaners. Public transport is a public service. Having good public transport links is excellent for our environment, air quality, connectivity, economic growth other such issues. We really do need better.
This might be a rare occasion when I entirely agree with a Member on the Government Benches, but I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Ynys Môn that Avanti should not be allowed to run the franchise beyond April next year. We need to make sure that the Government do not extend the contract and that the franchise goes back into public ownership, so that it is run for people and the planet, rather than for FirstGroup shareholders to feed off. I will finish there. I could say a lot more, and I apologise for stepping out earlier—please forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate, and I look forward to the other contributions.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) on securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee on facilitating it. I guess that the debate is of interest to a considerable number of Members of this House, and I suspect that the reason the Chamber is not fuller today is that a lot of them are in Euston station waiting to see whether they can get a train home. Indeed, to be absolutely frank, the only reason that I am here is that I had the foresight to bring my car on Sunday—I did not want to take my chances with Avanti today immediately before Christmas.
The west coast main line is one of the most important pieces of transport infrastructure in this country, as it links the capital with major population centres such as Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Importantly for my constituents, as my hon. Friend said, it also connects to the north Wales main line, which links the capital to north Wales towns and Holyhead, which is the principal ferry port to Ireland.
For my constituents, the west coast and north Wales main lines are a lifeline to the capital city and the major cities of the north-west and the midlands. North Wales is an extremely important holiday destination, so it is vital for the north Wales economy that there should be good, reliable and frequent links to London and other cities. Similarly, north Wales businesspeople and travellers are entitled to have those links to the capital.
Sadly, the rail network is currently beset by strikes, but that aside, north Wales has not enjoyed a decent train service for quite a long time. For many years, as we have heard, the franchise was operated by Virgin Trains and the service was generally regarded as good, reliable and efficient. In 2019, however, the franchise was granted to Avanti West Coast, which is a joint venture of FirstGroup and Trenitalia, as we have heard. Since then, matters have declined considerably. It is ironic that an Italian company is involved, because it used to be said that the only decent thing that Mussolini ever did was make the Italian trains run on time.
It is no exaggeration to say that Avanti has performed deplorably for much of the year, and nowhere has that performance been more lamentable than in north Wales. For much of the time since August, there has been, at best, only one through train a day between Holyhead and London. Travellers from stations across north Wales have been obliged to change trains once and sometimes twice at Chester and Crewe. The north Wales main line has been reduced to the status of an inefficient branch line.
Complaints are legion. I will give the House a flavour of some of the complaints that I have received from my constituents. One said:
“The current North Wales to London service is the worst I have known in the 30 years that I have used it”,
and that that makes it “impossible” for them or their wife
“to hold UK-wide appointments which require our attendance at meetings in London.”
Another said that Avanti’s management of the west coast route is
“limiting our growth, because we can no longer rely on trains to and from London, as we did when Virgin ran the train line. As such, we have missed many business opportunities because we have had so many trains cancelled, resulting in our clients losing confidence in our service. We have also had return trains delayed, meaning we have incurred unnecessary expense and inconvenience as we have had to stay in hotels and lose valuable working hours the next day.”
I received one on Monday that said:
“I returned to Colwyn Bay on the 18:10 Avanti train from London Euston last Friday. The train consisted of only five coaches instead of the advertised 10 and effectively departed dangerously overloaded due to the number of passengers having to stand. The on-board seat booking system was absent, causing much confusion, no refreshment/buffet service available, and the service arrived over 20 minutes late to Colwyn Bay. In all, a very poor service, which, sadly, I have become accustomed to.”
I could regale the House with similar personal experiences, such as of my five-hour journey home last Friday that would normally take under three hours.
Those complaints are entirely justified when one looks at the empirical evidence. The website of the Office of Rail and Road reveals that the average rate of cancellations in Great Britain as a whole was 4.1% in the quarter from July to September 2022. However, in the same quarter, the rate of cancellations for Avanti West Coast was 12.1%—almost three times the national average. On punctuality, the percentage of recorded station stops arrived at on time for Great Britain as a whole was 67.7%; for Avanti, it was 38.8%—almost twice as bad.
As we have heard, Avanti’s operational problems have primarily been caused by a shortage of available drivers. It has pursued a business model of relying heavily on drivers undertaking overtime work as a matter of course. The short-sightedness of that approach is manifest in the dreadful service that north Wales rail passengers have endured, despite the best efforts of Avanti train staff, who I have no doubt are just as dispirited by the current situation as anyone else. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, I highly value the work of Avanti train staff, who are always cheerful and efficient; it is just that they are trying to do their best while working for a really inefficient operation.
In August, the vast majority of Avanti staff refused to work overtime, meaning that the company, instead of having the staff to run 400 services, had enough to run only 50. Avanti called this “unofficial strike action”. ASLEF disputes that, saying that drivers do not have to work overtime, and it is hard not to have some sympathy with that view. The fact is that if Avanti wanted to take on the franchise, it was up to the company to ensure that it could deliver on its obligations. Avanti says that all train operators rely on overtime to deliver services, but other, comparable train operators have not had the difficulties that it has experienced. For example, LNER, which runs the east coast franchise, has run a normal timetable since February. Avanti must therefore be incapable of cultivating good relations with its staff in such a way as to achieve an acceptable service.
Avanti formerly operated the franchise under an emergency recovery measures agreement, which fell due to be renewed on 16 October. Many of us fervently hoped that it would not be renewed; indeed, north Wales Conservative MPs wrote to the DFT urging it not to renew it. However, before the 16th, the Department announced that Avanti’s franchise would be extended to 1 April 2023 to assess whether the company could improve its services.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, Avanti has introduced a new timetable with effect from 11 December, although that timetable still represents a reduction in the normal levels of service. Given the strikes that we are currently enduring, it is probably too early to say whether the timetable will hold. However, it is ominous that, as of yesterday, ASLEF has been balloting its members on strike action over new rosters.
Frankly, Avanti’s stewardship of the west coast franchise has been nothing short of appalling. It has not provided, and it continues not to provide, a proper standard of service to passengers on the west coast main line, and that failure must not be ignored by the Government. I have had a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister today saying that the Government are working with Avanti to try to improve the service. My suspicion is that, with respect, he is flogging a dead horse, because I do not think that Avanti is capable of improvement.
The current situation is not just inconveniencing travellers; it is damaging the economy right across the country, not least in the part of the world I represent. It is impossible to see any good reason why Avanti should continue to operate the west coast franchise. At the earliest possible moment, the Government should remove the franchise from Avanti and seek a new operator for the west coast main line. Avanti has had its chance, and it has failed. There is no reason why passengers in north Wales or in any other part of the country should be expected to continue to endure the consequences of Avanti’s sheer incompetence.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) on securing this important debate today. Those of us who travel on this line sympathise with all the tales we have heard today and everything that she has said, because we are all suffering the same terrible journeys. As someone who has travelled pretty much every week from Wilmslow in my constituency to London since 2017, when I became the MP for the area, I have a wide knowledge of the service on which to draw and plenty of first-hand experience of the journey.
The west coast main line is one of the major routes in Great Britain, stretching 399 miles from London to Glasgow and Edinburgh via the west midlands and the north-west of England. The Department for Transport describes the west coast main line as
“one of our most important rail corridors.”
It links four of Britain’s biggest conurbations and serves all rail markets—inter-city, commuter, regional and freight—and there are 11 train operating companies using the line. However, I wish to keep my comments to the Manchester to London route and to Avanti. The train service between Wilmslow and London, on that Manchester to London line, used to be hourly, direct and took one hour and 50 minutes. Since the pandemic, the rise in industrial action and the start of Avanti operating the line, the service has gone shockingly downhill, ending now in the substandard service that we have today.
A few weeks ago, Bee Rowland, a rail traveller, caused a Twitter storm by posting a picture of her child whom she had stuffed in a luggage rack. I sympathised with her, because I had done exactly the same thing, only it was not a child that I had stuffed in the luggage rack—it was me, for the full two-hour journey. That was because people from several trains had had to cram into one train. Most people were standing, but, fortunately—I say fortunately, but it was ironically—I managed to squeeze into the travel rack and sat there for the full journey. Bee Rowland’s experience was on Grand Central, mine on Avanti.
The travelling public are being taken for fools. We no longer have a rail service; it is a rail sufferance. It is an unreliable system that has gone backwards to such an extent that it is probably as bad as British Rail used to be when it was the butt of every comedian’s joke. Trains might or might not arrive. There are delays, staff shortages, staff late for work, or just random cancellations.
I have been a lover of rail travel ever since I was young when I travelled everywhere on trains with my granddad, who started work on the railways at Lime Street station in Liverpool, aged 12, as a bag carrier, and stayed there until he retired. I am a railway lover and I have been brought up on trains, so to see the rail industry in such a mess makes me want to weep. It is being made worse, without doubt, by industrial action and the excessive strike action. It is as if the unions want to push these private train operating companies over the edge to make them fail.
The RMT’s latest act of sabotage—48-hour strikes between 13 December and 7 January, wiping £1.2 billion off the UK’s economy over Christmas—is hurting travellers, businesses and local communities. I am not excusing the management of these railway companies—certainly not—but between them and the unions, they will force people to travel by other means. It will be anything other than the trains. The people who will suffer the most will be those who work on the railways.
Since August 2022, Avanti has cut the number of trains between London, Euston and Manchester Piccadilly from one every 20 minutes to one an hour “until further notice”. It said that it had acted in the wake of industrial action
“to ensure a reliable service is delivered, so customers can travel with greater certainty.”
I am still waiting for that greater certainty, as are my constituents.
Life is difficult enough, but not to be able to get to work, to school, or to see families is unacceptable, especially at the prices that we pay to travel by train. Looking at the cancellation figures between 4 November 2021 to 12 November 2022, it appears that the average cancelled by Avanti was 5.5%, and those cancelled by other causes 6.8%—so, about 12% altogether. However, that is not the full story, because 33% of our trains have already been cancelled and so what we are saying is that 45% of trains have been cancelled. I often get to the station and find that even the guards do not know whether a train is coming or not. Then, I jump on the train to Crewe and perhaps on another one to Stafford and then I go on to London. Instead of a one hour 50 minute journey, it can take four and a half hours or even six hours, each way.
Let us look at the other side of the coin. Only last week, I had an insufferable journey to Crewe, only to find that a direct train from London had been put on at the last minute, which nobody knew about. So an empty train pulled into Crewe to give me the last leg of my journey to Wilmslow. We call these ghost trains; they are empty trains that travel up the line, pretending to get the numbers right, which they are not because nobody is on them. Sadly for its customers, Avanti West Coast had the fewest trains on time, at just 38.8%, making it the least punctual operator in the country. As for the part that runs through my patch, Avanti says that 87% of its trains from 16 October 2022 to 12 November 2022 were 15 minutes or more late. That is a huge amount that are unreliable.
So I guess there are a couple of messages for the Minister. Avanti has to get its house in order or lose its contract to somebody who can run a better rail service. We need to get our rail system back up and running. It has been knocked sideways during the lockdown and it is being battered now by industrial action, but we do not want any more excuses. We need to get our rail system back on track. So here is an idea to make our railway system reliable, regular and well-maintained: let us stop wasting those billions of pounds that are going into HS2 and get a proper train system working right across the country, locally and nationally, for all of the citizens of this country.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I join colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) on securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee on scheduling it.
Like so many colleagues here today, I am speaking on behalf of thousands of constituents who rely on their rail services, particularly the west coast main line, but are being thoroughly let down and deserve a far better service. As one of the major cities, and indeed the newest city, along the west coast main line, Milton Keynes is served by both Avanti West Coast and London Northwestern Railway. However, even if my constituents are lucky enough even to have a train turn up at all, the trains are often delayed, unreliable and overcrowded. I spend many a journey between Milton Keynes and London sat on the floor in between the carriages. It is a pretty miserable experience, apart from a few weeks ago when I was sitting in what is probably my usual spot on the floor just outside the toilet and I was joined by a bunch of lasses from Milton Keynes who were going to a Halloween party. We managed to strike up some conversation and they were good enough to share their cider. I had a nice journey down and arrived in London with a temporary tattoo, which is gone now. But we should not rely on generosity and community spirit to take the misery out of these journeys.
Many constituents have got in touch to share their poor experience, especially with Avanti West Coast. As Milton Keynes is one of the major community cities into London, my constituents need a punctual and reliable service to get into work, but often they just do not get one. The train service in Milton Keynes is often so bad that my constituents are resorting to driving to London stations such as Cockfosters, which is a 46-mile journey, and then taking the tube into London, rather than taking the train from Milton Keynes. In an extreme case, a constituent has shared that, due to the cancellation of two of the regular morning commuter services, they now pay more than £800 a month for a first-class ticket, just to guarantee that they will get a seat. Without paying for first class, they would face one of those overcrowded journeys that I end up on—and almost more often than not they are still paying for the privilege of being late.
Given Milton Keynes’s important and strategic location in the region, connected by rail to other major cities such as Birmingham and Manchester and well placed within that Oxford and Cambridge arc, any disruption in the rail service causes serious problems to my constituents’ everyday lives: not just difficulties in getting to work, but disruption and delays in visiting friends and family and getting to important appointments. In another case, a constituent has shared that they find the service offered by Avanti “abysmal”, with only one train an hour running from Birmingham and Manchester, down from three an hour. They have resorted to using the coach.
The problem is more than a lack of timing and reliable trains; there is also a lack of accessibility. Another constituent has been in touch, a wheelchair user who shared that, shockingly, the rail service is completely inaccessible to him on his own and often there are no staff available to help. In 2022, it is unacceptable that wheelchair users are left abandoned with no support to use the rail service.
The situation simply cannot continue. Not only does it impact my constituents, but it poses a risk to the growth and the economy of Milton Keynes as a whole. Year on year, Milton Keynes has consistently been ranked as one of the United Kingdom’s fastest-growing economies. In fact, a recent study named Milton Keynes as the fourth fastest-growing economy by the end of 2022, increasing year on year by 3.3% and adding £500 million to the local economy.
However, one of the major factors in that growth is our location and our transport connections. That is why huge local employers such as Santander move their headquarters there. But why would Santander continue to invest in our city, and why would talented people continue to choose to work, live and set up their businesses here when they cannot rely on the train arriving on time or with the capacity to take them on their journey?
Navendu Mishra
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Department for Transport should conduct economic analysis of the damage that Avanti has caused to each constituency it serves? I tabled a written parliamentary question on that earlier this year, but the response from the Government was not helpful.
Ben Everitt
Far be it from me to direct my hon. Friend the Minister, but it does seem that the hon. Gentleman has an excellent point. What I assume he is getting at is that the growth of not just Milton Keynes’s economy, but economies around the country is being put at risk by these poor services. Potentially, there may be data out there that we can draw on, though I would not want to draw the Department’s resources too far from the clear focus on improving services, so I will leave that with the Minister to take forward.
The problem is that, while we recognise the importance of maintaining a good service on the line, we need to take things forward. We need to improve. I welcome the fact that the Government are putting pressure on Avanti to improve its services. We have heard in this debate about the short-term extension of the contract until April 2023—I note that there is no particular enthusiasm for anything more than a short-term extension at this point. That extension is not rewarding failure; it is a clear and urgent message to Avanti that it must improve its service and its performance or face losing the franchise.
I have spoken to Avanti recently. It is positive that it is getting the point because, importantly, it has apologised and accepted that its service is not good enough. I understand that changes are on the way, with nearly 100 additional drivers added to the service between April and December this year, so we could see slight but welcome improvements to the service. However, this is very early days and my constituents and I are incredibly wary. I urge the Government to continue to actively monitor the service on that line and, more importantly, to hold the company to account, so that if we do not see drastic improvements to the reliability, punctuality and frequency of the service, that contract is removed. If we do not make those changes, Milton Keynes and other stops along the west coast main line risk being left behind. With so many opportunities for growth and success coming to the new city of Milton Keynes, it would be a real tragedy if all those benefits were put at risk due to a failing train operator.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) in this important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) on securing it. Earlier this year, following months of disruption to the rail service on the west coast main line, Avanti was put on notice to improve its service. As we have heard already from a great many Members, everyone who uses Avanti—including me, as I travel between the House and my Delyn constituency—knows that, sadly, it continues to fail to provide us with the service we deserve, or even one close to that.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to offer a little note of sympathy for Avanti. Over the past few months, the man who never met a microphone he didn’t like, Mick “Grinch”, the union boss stealing Christmas from millions of people, and his militant arrogance, continues to ensure major operational issues across the network, and untold misery caused by his love of striking, which apparently is a last resort—of course it is. That is after a two-year global pandemic, which saw family gatherings come to a grinding halt to try to control the virus. This is the first year when everything should finally be back to normal and we can be with our families again at Christmas, but RMT members have decided to cause untold misery to families and businesses. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
We have a settled situation of devolution in Wales, which means that for more than two decades the people of north Wales, and the people of Delyn, have grown used to being overlooked and underfunded. We just get on with it, and we do our best to cope with whatever challenges we face. Like all my colleagues in north Wales, many of whom we have already heard from, I am determined to secure the opportunities of the levelling-up agenda, which was at the heart of the UK Government’s manifesto. For so many across north Wales, levelling up is so much more than the investment, jobs, and opportunities it promises, but it is being undermined and made more difficult because of issues that we have heard so much about in this debate.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) said, the west coast main line is a critical piece of UK infrastructure. It is essential cross-border infrastructure linking England to north Wales and Scotland, as identified in Sir Peter Hendy’s connectivity review. The north Wales coast line runs from Holyhead via Chester to Crewe, where it joins the west coast main line and connects directly to London. It is also vital in connecting us to the island of Ireland, and in connecting Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom through the port of Holyhead, which is the UK’s second busiest roll-on roll-off port, and vital for the infrastructure of north Wales.
When the trains between Holyhead and Euston do run, which is relatively unusual in itself, there are daily frustrations, which we have heard about many times. These are things that aggravate me and other passengers: the shop is not stocked, the card machine does not work, the wi-fi does not work, the carriages are overcrowded, and people have to sit on the floor—tattoos or no tattoos, sitting on the floor is never good. Recently, people have at times been unable to book train tickets in advance, because they show as fully booked even when they are not. Many colleagues have rightly asked whether Avanti could run a bath, let alone a rail service—although I would never resort to that type of rhetoric.
Just one train per hour goes from London to Manchester, instead of three per hour, as it was before. There is one train a day from London to Chester, instead of an hourly service, and a shuttle service from Crewe to Holyhead instead of what used to be nine direct trains a day from Holyhead to London. It is astonishing.
I regularly meet and speak to Avanti’s regional management. It has been reassuring to hear that they are committed to improving services and that they admit that a lot of their promises have simply not been delivered. That has led to job losses, including in some of the most senior positions, but it is now time to deliver. A new timetable is out, with a massive amount of new services on it. That is very welcome, but trains running to the old timetable were constantly delayed, cancelled or unreliable, so I am baffled as to how Avanti will offer the extended service it has promised when the pared-back offering was so shambolic in the first place. Time will tell. I am certain that Avanti is watching this debate very closely, so I say again: it is time to deliver.
I have stayed out of these debates in the past. In the face of a lot of criticism from colleagues about the service, I have stayed pretty positive, because pressures on the train operating companies have been significant. I try to stay as reasonable as possible and be as patient as I can with them, but I am afraid that I have come to the limit of my patience. If things do not improve now, swiftly, I will be first in line to tell the Minister that the franchise should not be renewed any further, because it simply does not deliver.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) on securing this debate, which is of such importance to residents and businesses across north Wales and in my constituency. We had a Westminster Hall debate just a few weeks ago on the strategic importance of the west coast main line, and here we are again today. We seem to debate Avanti’s service to our constituents almost weekly; I am coming to the conclusion that if it were as regular as our debates, we would have one of the most reliable train services in the UK. Members across the House, representing constituencies all along the west coast main line, have made important contributions today about the impact on their communities of poor service performance on the line.
Aberconwy, which is so reliant on visitors and on our connections with the rest of the UK, has been similarly affected. On behalf of residents, communities and businesses throughout Aberconwy, I want to take the opportunity once again to state that Avanti’s service, particularly the service that it provides to north Wales, has been utterly unacceptable. Avanti’s implementation of an emergency timetable in August was one thing, but implementing a timetable that removed direct services between London and north Wales was, and remains, inexcusable. I share the sense of upset and inconvenience that so many local businesses and residents have expressed to me.
Reliable and affordable rail is vital to the prosperity of communities in Aberconwy and north Wales as a whole. Levelling up, which we talk about so much in this place, cannot succeed without good transport connectivity. Along the coast, to the west of my constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn has worked tirelessly for three years, leading the campaign for an Anglesey freeport, an initiative that will create tens of thousands of jobs on Anglesey and across north Wales. Rail services are vital to the success of that project, every bit as much as investment in Aberconwy.
Our plan for Aberconwy highlights the importance of investing in tourism and promoting new business. Aberconwy boasts world-class visitor attractions. We are home to Conwy castle, a world heritage site that was recently confirmed as the most beautiful castle in Europe. We have Llandudno, the queen of the Welsh resorts. We have much of Eryri and some of the most stunning coastlines and landscapes to be found anywhere in the UK. Visitors from around the UK and around the world come to Aberconwy each year in their millions and make an invaluable contribution to our local economy, but for our economy to succeed, they need to get there. For north Wales to thrive as a visitor destination on the global stage, we need the reliable rail services that we have continually been denied.
I turn to new business. As the pandemic demonstrated so clearly, we in Aberconwy must diversify our local economy and reduce our reliance solely on tourism. Aberconwy is home to apparently limitless entrepreneurial instinct and talent—Llandudno was identified in Companies House data earlier this year as the start-up capital of the UK—but to attract new business investment and create more jobs across Aberconwy, we need reliable and convenient rail connections with the rest of the UK. Avanti is failing to deliver that service. The value that might be unlocked in Llandudno—for example, by bringing it within two and a half hours of London, which an electrified connection would achieve—would be extraordinary.
That is for the future, and I recognise that Avanti has implemented a new timetable this month to increase the number of direct services between north Wales and London—a timetable that has unfortunately been impacted by the strikes. I echo the calls of my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones): the reliability to which we are entitled is not being delivered, and if there is not a dramatic and marked improvement in services, the Government must move to terminate the franchise.
I would like to take this opportunity to repeat a call I have made several times in these debates: if or when the franchise is removed, its name must change to acknowledge the strategic importance of the north Wales coast main line. The relegation of the north Wales coast main line back in August to effectively that of a mere branch line indicates that the Government themselves have not yet recognised its importance, despite the work of Sir Peter Hendy in his connectivity review. I make this request once again to the Minister: will he agree to review the name of the franchise and make it the north Wales and west coast main line?
I must highlight the strategic importance of the west coast main line to one community in particular: the United Kingdom. With principal terminuses in London, Holyhead and Glasgow, the west coast main line helps to bind together the nations of Great Britain and to strengthen our familial, business and educational ties. It is indispensable to the strength of the Union between our nations and to the success of our great British economy. Sir Peter Hendy highlighted that in his connectivity review, identifying and singling out north Wales as an important point of investment to develop this all-important UK network.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to address the strikes, which have, ironically, influenced the attendance in the Chamber today, in terms of both those who would have wished to be here and those who wished to be elsewhere for Christmas. Throughout the pandemic, the UK Government injected £16 billion of UK taxpayers’ money into the railway network to keep it afloat as passenger numbers collapsed. Unlike so many of my constituents and millions of people throughout the UK, not one railway worker’s job was lost, despite the collapse in revenue. Not one worker was furloughed. Jobs were protected. Full salaries were protected. Pensions were protected. Each railway job cost hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer money to protect.
The pandemic has changed the way that people travel and work, and passenger numbers have not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. The network cannot thrive without reform, and rail workers should be united in safeguarding the long-term protection of their jobs by luring passengers back to the railway, not by taking their custom for granted. These strikes also disproportionately impact those who are in the lowest-paid jobs or provide vital public services. I thank those who do recognise that and are doing their best during this holiday season, many of whom I meet on the service. To strike at all is regrettable, and to strike at Christmas, when so many hospitality and retail businesses are trying to recover from the devastation of the pandemic is inexplicable to me and to them.
Rail has been at the heart of our nation’s history and progress. This line binds our Union together. It has brought wealth to our communities, and the service on it is key to our future. If you will pardon the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker, in north Wales we see these tracks converge. My final question to the Minister is this: will he seize his place in our nation’s history and secure the future of high-performing services on the north Wales and west coast main line for the benefit of us all?
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating this afternoon’s timely debate. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) started the debate powerfully, and I do not disagree with a word she said. In fact, I do not disagree with pretty much anything anyone said, other than the comments of the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) about the Union and how it binds us all together. He failed at the last minute to get consensus across the Chamber. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn started well by talking about the importance of Holyhead not only to her local economy but to the wider Welsh economy, and how much Avanti’s terrible service has impacted that economy and her constituents.
On Monday, every single Avanti train leaving Glasgow for London was late, in most cases by at least half an hour. Five trains were more than an hour late. The passengers on those trains were actually the lucky ones. Anyone looking to travel in the afternoon from Scotland’s biggest city to England had a choice of two trains, both leaving late and arriving even later. Every other service was cancelled or terminated at Preston, which is a fine Lancashire city but about 237 miles from Euston. Lest any apologists for Avanti try to rely on the seasonal weather as an excuse, the first train on the previous Thursday was nearly two hours late arriving. The passengers on the last train arrived at Euston close to 1 am, more than six hours after they departed.
Avanti has set the west coast main line back decades, which is not hyperbole. I checked the British Rail timetables from 1982, 40 years ago, and the journey times that Avanti is now delivering almost daily are slower than the locomotives that were the backbone of the nationalised rail network in 1982.
Any criticism of Avanti or TransPennine Express in my speech is of upper management and executives, not the frontline staff, who, like everyone who has spoken in this debate, I have always found to be exemplary in their professionalism and courtesy. I am not just saying that because I am one of the many Members who will be seeking to get home on Avanti west coast main line services this evening. These services should be the Crown jewels of the British rail network, but instead they are straight out of the pound shop bargain bin, although not at a price to match.
TransPennine Express is just as bad as Avanti, and in some ways worse. On Monday it managed to run three of its seven timetabled services from Glasgow Central. Only one of four services made it to Manchester airport. Anyone looking to travel to Manchester after lunchtime was out of luck, as there were no trains at all. I put it to TransPennine Express’s chief executive at yesterday’s Transport Committee that, in the three weekdays prior to the strike action, only one of 12 scheduled trains made it from Glasgow to Manchester airport. That includes last Friday, when TransPennine Express managed a single train to Manchester before 5 am, after which there were zero services to England’s second biggest urban area from the biggest urban area in Scotland. It is almost as if all we have heard over the past 30 years about the benefits of rail privatisation and the wonders of the free market have been hot air and blether.
At least trade unions give advance notice that their actions will mean train cancellations and disruption, so travellers can make alternative arrangements and amend their plans. Avanti and other train operators can, and often do, wait until the very last minute before pulling the plug, leaving the trains that remain in service overcrowded, late and dirty, with the staff running them bearing the brunt of passenger frustration and anger.
It is clear from Avanti, TransPennine Express and the remaining privatised parts of the rail network that the system has completely and utterly broken down. The fragmentation of operators and network infrastructure has led to a system of little accountability and no cohesion, with long-term thinking left to outsiders and the occasional individual. Private operators have no incentive to provide a public service and every incentive to wring every penny out of its operations until the next rider on the gravy train takes over the contract. For months, the Government tried to maintain the line of laissez-faire non-intervention, before scuppering negotiations by adding conditions that they knew were guaranteed to send workers back to their trade union reps. We have a rail system in England that is edging closer and closer to collapse.
Navendu Mishra
The hon. Member referenced the term “fragmentation” earlier, and Avanti often talks about the fact that it does not have enough drivers available for its services. If we had a unified public transport system that was designed to serve our communities and our planet rather than private rail operators, perhaps we could have a system where, if there was a shortage of drivers in one part of the country, they were licensed to drive trains in other parts of the country.
Gavin Newlands
That seems to be an eminently sensible suggestion, which I hope Ministers can take up. GBR, which I will touch on later in my speech, seems to be no more, but I hope that the Government look at all the factors in our entire rail network in the round. That is a perfectly good suggestion.
Collectively, the privatised rail network is letting Scotland and the north of England down—I should also say north Wales; my apologies for not doing so. What is the economic impact on communities relying on the west coast line? How much badly needed growth in our regional and national economies is being sacrificed at the altar of free market gospel? What opportunities for developing freight and pushing a modal shift from road to rail are being lost and decarbonisation gains unrealised? How much more imbalanced is the UK economy becoming every day that the west coast line remains a shambles?
The Transport Committee heard from Avanti and TransPennine Express yesterday morning. I almost felt sorry for them trying to defend the indefensible—almost. I asked them if they thought that the travelling public believed that they should continue to operate train services. They at least had the good grace to dodge the question rather than admitting that passengers trying to use their services would probably just as soon see the Chuckle Brothers running them as TPE and Avanti. They at least have the excuse that they are only in it to make money. The UK Government have a wider responsibility.
Just six months ago, the then Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), told the House that his flagship project, Great British Railways, was how
“we are transforming the industry”.—[Official Report, 15 June 2022; Vol. 716, c. 318.]
The Chairman of Network Rail now says:
“I have stopped using those three words...it was clearly the invention of Boris Johnson, Andrew Gilligan and Grant Shapps”.
After all the fanfare, all the hype, a contest to decide its headquarters and the Transport Secretary of the time intervening to slap his name on the report that proposed it, GBR is dead in the water before it even began.
Given that the so-called Williams-Shapps review, as I suppose we should technically call it, stated clearly that GBR
“will be the single guiding mind and leader that the railways currently lack”,
one has to ask the question: without GBR, who will be the single guiding mind? Where is the leadership? Perhaps the new Rail Minister, who I get on well with, will be that leading mind. We shall see. The rail network is too important to leave to a Transport Secretary who, in recent weeks, has been a “here today, gone tomorrow” figure. Yet without some kind of arm’s length entity running and controlling our railways, we are doomed to short-termism and a strategy designed to get us through to the end of the latest crisis. Bringing the west coast operations under direct public control, as the Scottish Government have with ScotRail, would be a first step towards a rational and forward-thinking model of ownership and operation.
Scotland’s railway operates at arm’s length from the Government through Transport Scotland, but allows for greater integration with the Government’s political objectives. Even without the devolution of Network Rail, which we have called for in this place many times, the Scottish Government—and, to be fair, previous Scottish Executives under Labour and the Liberal Democrats—have expanded and transformed rail in Scotland and are still going full steam ahead with a programme of electrification that will, within just over a decade, help to fully decarbonise Scotland’s railway.
As with any public service at a time of economic crisis, there will be issues, but the settlement of disputes with ASLEF and the RMT at ScotRail earlier this year shows that, once again, the apparently radical tactic of Ministers treating trade unions and workers as partners rather than mortal enemies benefits everyone. I commend that approach to Government Members, mainly because it appears to be working. However, we are lucky in Scotland to have decades-long political consensus on how our railway should develop and the powers to make those choices happen.
Robin Millar
I am listening with a great deal of interest to the hon. Member. As he said, there is a lot of consensus in the Chamber. I cannot resist the chance to ask him this: does he think that a strong, integrated, high-performing, decarbonised railway network would inevitably bring all parts of the United Kingdom closer together?
Gavin Newlands
On the face of it, that sounds like a sensible suggestion, but where is that going to come from? There is no evidence from the Department for Transport and the UK Government of that actually happening. Scotland has decarbonised, or electrified, its railways twice as fast as the UK Government for more than 20 years now. There is no urgency about decarbonisation in the UK Government. About 16% of freight trains are still diesel because not enough of the network has been electrified, and that is down to this Government. So I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not see that happening any time soon. We are just getting on with it in Scotland.
I realise that my time is short, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I shall wrap up as quickly as I can. Transport for the North has seen its core budget slashed and projects such as Northern Powerhouse Rail trimmed, cut, cancelled or abandoned. TfN has protested every time another proposal for rail in the north has been binned, but ultimately Westminster and Whitehall decide what is best for communities there, and how much cash should be spent there. How can the west coast line have infrastructure and service fit for the future when every penny of expenditure is decided by someone sitting at a desk half a mile from here, rather than by elected Members and civil servants on the ground? How can a line with 20 of its 400 miles south of Watford be fully realised when those along the other 380 miles are seen as irrelevant when it comes to decision making?
Meanwhile, the latest performance statistics show that the gold-plated Elizabeth line—complete with stations costing £695 million, £661 million and £634 million, and an overall price tag of £19 billion—sits at the top as by far the most punctual train operator in the country, and no wonder, given the amount of money that has been ploughed into it. That level of investment in rail in the rest of England would generate huge benefits for the economy outside London and the south-east, but, as we know, anywhere outside the M25 can go to the back of the queue when transport investment is being lined up.
The current crisis on the west coast line may be because of current events, but its origins lie in decades of metropolitan establishment disdain for what are still condescendingly called “the regions”. I am afraid that, unless and until England begins to radically change the way in which it makes decisions about transport policy—decisions that have implications way beyond its borders—the west coast line, like the rest of the rail network outside the M25, will atrophy and continue to be a hindrance rather than a boost to local and national economies. I urge the Secretary of State and his new team to roll up their sleeves like their counterparts in Scotland, get involved in the nitty-gritty rather than leaving it up to private corporations, and then begin the process of putting control over national assets such as the west coast line back into the hands of those who benefit most: the people and communities who rely on them.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) on securing it. Given that the west coast main line is, in the words of the Minister’s own Department,
“one of our most important rail corridors”,
it was crucial for the House to have the opportunity to discuss the state of the line’s services—or, more accurately, lack of services—on this Government’s watch.
While there are numerous challenges across the line, as we have heard today from one Member after another, the bulk of the issues faced by passengers comes from just two operators. Let us look at suspect No. 1, Avanti West Coast, with 33% of services running on time. That is its current record, and it means two thirds of passengers being left out in the cold on platforms—two thirds of passengers who are late for their commitments or, even worse, never make them; two thirds of passengers who have been let down by Avanti’s shocking rail services. Instead of acknowledging the shortcomings of these operators, the Government have rewarded Avanti’s ongoing failures with a new contract extension, much to the consternation of Conservative Members. That contract was paid for out of the pockets of the very passengers who are being let down by Avanti, again and again.
Figures show that, last year alone, £12 million in dividends was paid to Avanti, the country’s worst-performing operator. Why is that? Why are the Government prepared to make hard-working passengers pay for a service that is delayed or cancelled almost as often as it is on time? One would be forgiven for thinking that having removed thousands of services from its schedules in August, reducing the number of trains between Euston and Manchester Piccadilly from one every 20 minutes to one every hour, Avanti would be capable of producing a more reliable network. Sadly, even expecting that minimal level of service has been wishful thinking. Instead, those who rely on the busiest main line in the country face the reality that one in every eight Avanti west coast trains are cancelled. It is utterly absurd that millions of people, let alone numerous local businesses, cannot rely on these services.
Local metro Mayors have repeatedly raised concerns with the Government about the devastating impact the rail chaos is having on the northern economy, cutting people off from jobs, cutting businesses off from opportunities and cutting towns off from investment. Rewarding rail operators that obstruct northern growth is a far cry from the Government’s levelling-up agenda, which promised to better connect our towns and cities. The Government’s willingness to reward failure appears to be the common policy choice for west coast main line operating companies.
That brings us on to suspect No. 2: TransPennine Express. Six years ago, TransPennine Express blamed staff shortages, rest day working and driver recruitment for its failing services. Today, it is peddling the same old tired excuses. It therefore comes as no surprise that the Government plan to reward it with an eight-year contract in May. Some may be overly generous and say that the Government are incapable of recognising failure, but when we see how they are managing our public services across the board—from our health services and our schools to our borders—it is clear that they are simply doubling down on their failures and are happy to leave hard-working members of the public to pay the price. The Government have come up with a litany of excuses on behalf of west coast main line operating companies—excuses that do little to reassure those impacted by shambolic services.
Instead of making excuses, the Government should be looking at operators who are getting it right. On the east coast main line, as was explained earlier, more services are being delivered on time, with fewer cancellations. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that Britain’s rail infrastructure rivals that of our global partners. Instead, because of years of Tory failure to properly invest in our network, they have left our country with a second-rate infrastructure and rail services in crisis. To build the rail network that Britain needs, if the Government are not willing to strip franchises, they must at the very least place failing operators on a binding remedial plan to restore services for the British public, with clear penalties that discipline failure, not reward it. The new Rail Minister—the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), for whom I have a great deal of respect, especially in his previous role as Chair of the Transport Committee—has himself admitted that he absolutely sees the urgency of the current situation. If that is the case, why is he not taking urgent, decisive action?
Perhaps now would be a good time for the Minister to also come clean on whether the Transport Secretary is blocking an offer on rest day working that could stabilise rail services in the short term. The spokesman for the SNP, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), highlighted how the Transport Secretary, at the very last minute, torpedoed talks and an agreement that would have prevented strikes, but we shall leave that to debate another day.
The Government have demonstrated time and time again that they cannot be trusted to follow through on their promises, and now Avanti is following suit.
Navendu Mishra
I am often confused, because the Department for Transport often comes across as the public relations department for private rail operators, rather than as a Government Department resolving disputes and their root causes. Does my hon. Friend feel the same?
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend for that invaluable point. That is the central point: the Government must work for the people who have elected us, rather than the operators themselves. We owe it to the British people to ensure that they have world-class, quality rail services.
Robin Millar
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the public relations arm of the unions on the Opposition Benches would do a better job?
Mr Dhesi
In the last few months the Labour party have called again and again on Transport Secretaries—we are on our third one, and I have faced one Rail Minister after another and hope that the incumbent will be in his position for a lot longer—to get around the table to resolve these issues. If they had, they would have been long resolved. As was exposed by The Daily Telegraph, along with other media, had it not been for the Transport Secretary torpedoing the talks between the rail unions and operators at the last minute by introducing another condition on driver-only trains, the British people would not have had to face train strike action.
In November Avanti promised a full timetable for December, but managed only a 40% increase in services. We have heard cross-party complaints. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn eloquently explained Avanti’s repeated broken promises and rip-off rail, as she termed it. She said that Avanti’s services have deteriorated even more than before. We have heard about the failures in staff shortages, recruitment and morale—comments underpinned by the ASLEF rail union general secretary, Mick Whelan. This must be the last chance saloon before it is stripped of its franchise and put under the operator of last resort.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) spoke about the damage to Stockport’s economy and the region, and how catering roles had been cut significantly. He spoke eloquently about the RMT’s “Justice for Cleaners” campaign and how it is unacceptable that so many hard-working rail workers who kept our country moving during the pandemic are now relying on food banks. Shockingly, 84% of rail workers are struggling to make ends meet. He described how the privatised, fragmented franchise model has failed us.
The right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) said that he came here by car because he could not rely on the rail services. He spoke about how since 2019, Avanti has operated deplorably and is incapable of building good relations with its staff. He said that north Wales Conservative MPs wrote to the Minister to ask him not to renew Avanti’s franchise. He laments that the Minister says that he is working with Avanti, but he may be flogging a dead horse.
The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) spoke with considerable experience about how we are all suffering the same fate, especially given that she is a frequent user of this service. She said that, sometimes, not even the guards know whether a train is coming. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) spoke about how his constituents are being thoroughly let down. Appallingly, he often has to sit on the floor in his usual spot next to the toilets. He mentioned the accessibility problems faced by disabled passengers.
The hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) spoke about how levelling up is being undermined by the consistent rail fiasco. The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) saw fit to make biting interventions, but none the less he spoke about the importance of the line for England, Scotland, and Wales and how we seem to debate poor services on the west coast mainline on a weekly basis—more reliable than Avanti’s current services.
When can we expect Avanti to deliver a full service for the north? Will it finally be stripped of the franchise? Finally, on TransPennine Express, can the Minister reassure the House that, given its record of failure, its contract will not be renewed for a further eight years? In the run-up to Christmas, people should be spending time with family and friends, not wasting time on platforms waiting for trains that never turn up. The Government need finally to get a grip.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) for securing this important debate on rail transport services to the communities served by the west coast main line. She is a doughty campaigner and advocate for train services in her area. In my short tenure, we have spoken many times, and I know that we will speak more.
I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to the debate, who were my right hon. Friends the Members for Tatton (Esther McVey) and for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) and for Delyn (Rob Roberts), and not forgetting the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and my shadow colleagues the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Slough (Mr Dhesi). I think that I have remembered everybody.
May I start by empathising with all my colleagues and their constituents for the challenges they have all faced on the west coast main line service? I am very sorry about the situation and am determined to see it turned around. I will explain how we will do that, but I owe it to those who have taken part in the debate to explain why the service levels have deteriorated so sharply.
Colleagues whom I have spoken to about this matter in recent weeks have told me that, prior to the summer, the service had been holding up relatively well. Indeed, between 9 January and 1 May, 3% of cancellations were attributed to Avanti. After the end of July, the figure rose to 25%, which is clearly unacceptable. The reason for such a dramatic deterioration can be traced back to the decision on 30 July by many drivers not to work beyond their contracted hours. Let me put that into context and perhaps explain why that may have happened.
A two-year qualified Avanti train driver is paid almost £67,500 and typically works 35 hours over three to four days. To ensure that the railways can operate over a seven-day period, the industry has relied on drivers working additional hours during their rest days. That, in my view—it would also appear to be the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West—has never been a satisfactory means to run our railway, as it relies on good will and means that a train operator cannot put its roster together without drivers volunteering.
On 30 July, as I said, things changed. Avanti experienced an immediate and near total cessation of drivers volunteering to work passenger trains on rest days. More than 90% of drivers who had previously volunteered to work overtime informed Avanti that they would no longer do so, which would not occur without some level of union organisation. That left Avanti unable to resource its timetable and, in the immediate term, resulted in the significant short-notice cancellations that right hon. and hon. Members have described. Avanti therefore reduced its timetable in response to the withdrawal of rest-day working. Although highly disruptive, it gave passengers a chance to try to make alternative plans. That approach reduced cancellations from about 25% of the service in late-July and August to about 5% this month.
May I now look more towards the future and be more positive as to what we are seeking to deliver? Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn touched on this in her speech. The Department has been working with Avanti to overcome the operational issues. Agreed steps include almost 100 additional drivers entering service, extra trains on its key routes and extended booking options. Avanti is now operating a seven trains per hour timetable amounting to 264 daily train services on weekdays, which is a significant step up from the 180 daily services previously offered during the last six-month period, and more than those offered before the cessation of drivers volunteering to work rest days. Importantly—this is the really important part—the services are not dependent on rest-day working. That is good for Avanti, because it allows the company to put a roster together seven days a week, and it is seemingly good for the 90% of drivers who decided over the summer that they did not wish to work beyond their contracted hours. This timetable change represents an opportunity to put in place a long-term timetable base and to return to the extended booking horizons that passengers rightly expect.
I will touch on one point from the hon. Member for Stockport about catering services. I do not recognise those exact figures, but I will write to him. I have heard many stories where the catering services and the on-board service have just not been good enough, and within that we look to turn it around. He also touched on route knowledge and transferring between operators—a point with which the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North agreed. We completely concur; it takes months of route knowledge to get a driver to be able to travel a route safely.
The Office of Rail and Road and Network Rail have reviewed Avanti’s plan and are supportive of the proposition, noting that its full and successful delivery requires agreement with trade unions. The Department is monitoring Avanti’s delivery and holding the company to account as appropriate. The new timetable started on Sunday 11 December—Sunday just gone. Alas, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy, we are now in a further period of national industrial action, so it may take time to assess fully the performance of the new timetable. I put on record that I am grateful to all the staff at Avanti who have allowed us to introduce this new timetable.
Many hon. and right hon. Members have inquired about Avanti’s contract extension. On 7 October this year, a short-term contract was entered into with the incumbent operator. The contract extends the delivery of the West Coast Partnership and Avanti West Coast business for six months until 1 April 2023. This gives Avanti a clear opportunity to improve its services to the standards that we and the public expect. The Government will then consider Avanti’s performance while finalising a national rail contract for consideration in relation to the route, alongside preparations by the operator of last resort, should it become necessary for the operator to step in at the end of the extension period.
Mr David Jones
Can the Minister say in percentage terms what his expectation is for Avanti being able to deliver a full timetable by the end of March?
Huw Merriman
I cannot, unfortunately, because as things stand we have industrial action. I would be unable to determine even what the service will be like into the first week of January, because there is an expectation when national industrial action takes place that only 20% of services can run, and the day after—a day like today—only 65% can run. Until that industrial action comes down, which I will touch on, I cannot give my right hon. Friend that assurance at all. I call on all parties in this House to call for industrial action to come down.
Mr Jones
I fully understand that we have national rail strikes, but putting that to one side, and focusing on the efforts that Avanti is making and the work that the Minister’s Department is doing, what is his expectation in percentage terms that Avanti will deliver a full timetable?
Huw Merriman
My right hon. Friend is experienced in this place, and he will perhaps be aware that I cannot give a percentage. All I can say is that the rail regulator and Network Rail’s project management office have reviewed the recovery plan, and they are content, while recognising the challenges that the operator faces, that matters within Avanti’s control look to be within its control, and therefore it should be able to roll the timetable out. Indeed, with 100 extra staff and not working on rest-day working practices, Avanti should be confident, and I am confident as well, but I cannot give him a percentage figure, I am afraid; I can just give him my optimism.
Huw Merriman
I will not, because I want to make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
My hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North and for Delyn called for the decision to award a short contract to have a “keep options open” status, and they are right to say that. An extension to the contract at this stage will not preclude transferring the contract to the operator of last resort at the end of the extension term.
I will respond to what the hon. Member for Stockport said in exchanges with the hon. Member for Slough, who then brought up the TransPennine Express franchise. I was asked specifically why the Secretary of State was blocking an offer to resolve issues at TPE. I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Stockport that the Secretary of State signed off an offer for rest-day working to be put back to ASLEF on TPE, because that rest-day working agreement was not extended at ASLEF’s request at the end of last year. That offer was made, so he will be pleased by the Secretary of State’s input, but it was rejected by ASLEF despite being equally the most generous at time and a half. I will work on the basis that he will call for ASLEF to take a refreshed view on that situation.
That leads me nicely on to workforce reform; my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy both touched on industrial action. The way that passengers use the railway has changed. With more people working at home, we need to ensure that rail is put on a sustainable footing. The railway is losing up to £175 million of revenue each month as a result of fewer passengers post pandemic. That cannot continue. Passengers rightly expect a regular, reliable service seven days a week, but as we have found with Avanti, current shift patterns and voluntary weekend working for railway staff make that vision almost impossible.
Getting stuck in endless disputes will not solve any of that, or bring back the passengers that the railway so badly needs. The only solution is for everyone to come together and agree a new way forward. Contrary to what has been said, the Secretary of State and I have met the trade unions and heard their concerns. We helped to facilitate a fair offer that delivers a pay increase more generous than those in the private sector are gaining and that guarantees no compulsory redundancies. More than a third of RMT members voted to accept Network Rail’s proposal, despite being instructed not to. There is clearly an appetite among workers to strike a deal and I welcome today’s decision by the Transport Salaried Staffs Association—the second-largest union—to do just that. We urge the RMT to reconsider and to return to the negotiating table with the employers.
We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rebuild a world-leading network. The result will be a thriving rail industry that continues to support Britain’s economy and society for generations to come. The hon. Member for Stockport urged me, through the hon. Member for Slough, to get involved. I can tell him that after this debate, I will be sitting down with Mick Lynch from the RMT and the employers to try to facilitate some form of agreement.
Navendu Mishra
The Minister is being generous in giving way. On his point about the workforce, I encourage him to comment on low pay, zero hours and the treatment of cleaning contractors who work on the railway. Inflation is at almost 11% and they deserve fair pay and a decent pension.
Huw Merriman
I will look into that and get back to the hon. Gentleman, because the stories that he shared need investigating. My constituent, who is also on a zero-hours contract, is concerned because every day that the trade unions go on strike on the railways, she loses her wages. She contrasted her wages with some of those taking strike action. I hope that we can work together in that spirit of compromise.
It is vital that we invest in infrastructure in the long term. The Department is investing £54 million to improve the power supply on the west coast main line at Bushey near Watford, which will create additional reliability and support the introduction of new bi-mode rolling stock for use on partially non-electrified routes, such as those in north Wales. In control period 7 between 2024 and 2029, we will invest more than £44 billion in the existing rail network to support Network Rail’s operations, maintenance and renewal activity. Network Rail’s business planning processes for control period 7 will focus on how the railway can contribute to long-term economic growth; support levelling up and connectivity; meet customers’ needs; and deliver financial sustainability.
As all right hon. and hon. Members have said, the west coast main line is critical to the national network today, but it is also important to the future of the railways. For example, on completion of High Speed 2 phase 2a, new HS2 trains will join the existing west coast main line to create direct services to places including Liverpool, Manchester, Preston, Carlisle and Glasgow.
Turning to the name change, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy has made his pitch. All I can say is that, with a name such as mine, I am very much attracted to the idea, although I am sorry to say that my family came from south Wales rather than north Wales. However, that will not hold back the appetite for work.
Robin Millar
I thank the Minister; he is being very generous with his time, and I shall be brief. The reason for the name change is not simply to change the name; it is to reflect the strategic importance of north Wales to the integration of the United Kingdom and everything that flows from that. Does he accept that?
Huw Merriman
I do, and I accept that we are not talking gimmicks here; we are talking about detailed descriptions of what the line actually does, but also about what it can do to enhance the north Wales economy and community. I absolutely do get that.
To conclude, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn and all right hon. and hon. Members for contributing to this important debate. Passengers on the west coast main line have had a torrid time, and we owe it to them to deliver a vastly improved service. The additional drivers, the move away from voluntary working and the new timetable afford the opportunity to turn matters around. I am determined to play my part. I expect Avanti, the unions and everyone connected with this to join me and ensure that this line delivers once again.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
This must be a Christmas miracle. We have had a debate on the west coast main line, and not only was it not cancelled at short notice, but it has not even run late. A miracle indeed! The final word goes to Virginia Crosbie.
Virginia Crosbie
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank everyone who participated in the debate, everyone in all parties who signed my Backbench Business debate form, and the Backbench Business Committee for supporting this important debate on the west coast main line.
I thank the Minister for his detailed response. I hope that he has heard the message loud and clear. All our constituents deserve a rail service that is not reliant on rest-day working, volunteering and good will. Our railways must work seven days a week. It is vital that the Department for Transport monitors Avanti’s delivery and holds Avanti to account.
We need a modern railway where passengers get a reliable timetable, no matter when they travel on Avanti. We need to improve our railways, and we need to attract more passengers so that the industry is on a sound footing going forward. Our constituents deserve to have the service that they pay for and that they expect.
To summarise, it is clear that Avanti offers an appalling service to our constituents. I do not believe that it can turn the service around. For the record, I believe—to use the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones)—that the Government are flogging a dead horse.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered rail transport services for communities served by the West Coast Main Line.
Leisure Centres: Government Support
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak about the important issue of leisure centre provision. As we consider all the sectors struggling with increased bills and financial pressures, we must not forget leisure centres. In many ways, they are something of a Cinderella service even in good times—they are not glamorous and they are taken for granted as spaces where people can meet, socialise, rehabilitate, exercise and, in this bitter weather, keep warm —and, as we all know, we are in anything but good times.
I will speak about my local leisure centres in Warrington, but I first want to set out the national picture, and I am grateful to the Local Government Association for many of the figures that I will use. Councils in England are currently the biggest funder of sport and leisure services and facilities. If we include parks and green spaces, councils currently spend over £1.1 billion a year and are responsible for 2,727 leisure centres, a majority of the UK’s 27,000 parks, 31% of grass pitches, 33% of all swimming pools—the majority of publicly accessible pools—20% of health and fitness facilities and 13% of sports halls.
Our councils cannot prioritise leisure centre provision because these centres are not statutory services, and while we all understand the pressures from more acute needs, the swimming pools, sports facilities and community halls that are provided by local authorities are treasured by the public like few other council facilities. Up to and including the past decade of austerity, councils have broadly managed to be self-sustaining for day-to-day leisure spending through fees and other charges, while seeking to subsidise poorer users—in some cases even being able to raise revenues for other council services. They have not, however, had the scope to afford capital expenditure to upgrade buildings, make repairs or improve insulation. As an aside, I say that 68% of sports halls and swimming pools are more than 20 years old, and so are used less by the public than newer facilities.
And then came covid. Despite the Government’s support through the national leisure recovery fund, this did not match the significant maintenance and staffing costs that leisure facilities incurred even without the footfall and income that they would usually have. Many councils used their own funds to save facilities from closure and provided £159 million of emergency funding in total, while leisure providers contributed £144 million from their reserves. Following this emergency funding, operators were already financially vulnerable going into the current energy crisis. They now face bills up to 200% higher this year compared with 2019—the last normal operating year—with costs set to grow by up to 240% next year.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
In my constituency, Freedom Leisure works alongside the local authority to deliver services, and it was able to upgrade as a result. It was really tough during covid. I met Jeremy Rowe, its operations director, and he told me that in Wales alone there is a £3.3 million uplift in energy costs. The figure for Swansea is £1.4 million. Does my hon. Friend agree that the loss of these vital community assets could devastate our local communities?
Charlotte Nichols
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I will come on to, we cannot put a pounds-and-pence figure on the value of leisure centre provision locally and what it means to our communities, and particularly our most vulnerable residents. That is why this debate is so important, and I am grateful that she has come to support it.
In October, ukactive research found that 40% of council areas are at risk of losing their leisure centres or seeing reduced services at their leisure centres before 31 March 2023. Three quarters—74%—of council areas are classified as “unsecure”, which means there is a risk of leisure centres closing and/or reducing services before 31 March 2024.
The LGA believes that, without Government intervention, large numbers of public sector leisure facilities are unlikely to make it through to next spring, with service restrictions and facility closures already growing. As the voice of local government, the Local Government Association has called for discussion of a number of measures to address the immediate financial pressures: an in-year grant with an increase to the local government settlement from 2023-24 to ringfence and protect public leisure facilities; an immediate review of sector taxation and regulation that minimises other outgoing costs, with longer-term business tax reform to collectively support the sustainability and growth of the sector; and support for a move to non-carbon-intensive heating methods, including opening up existing capital funding programmes to ensure that new build facilities are eligible for support, improving energy efficiency for the future, while also ensuring that they meet the needs and expectations of future communities, encouraging them to be active. I hope that the Minister will take all those on board, and confirm that he is engaging with the LGA on these specific points to save our leisure centres.
I want to turn now to our leisure services in Warrington, provided by LiveWire. At this point, I should declare an interest, in that I rent my constituency office from Warrington Leisure and Library Trust at commercial rates—I am not sure whether that is strictly declarable, but I wanted to flag it up. The building my office is in, the Orford Jubilee Neighbourhood Hub, also houses our local gym, pool, library and other services, such as the pharmacy, Macmillan Cancer Support and even a Subway—which I spend far too much of my money in on the days I am in my office, but I digress
LiveWire is an employer of more than 352 people in Warrington, delivering leisure, library and lifestyles services that attract more than 422,000 visits from local residents per quarter and make a vital contribution to the health and wellbeing of the community. LiveWire operates three neighbourhood hubs, two leisure centres, one community hub and 13 libraries. It is important to note here that it has been managing those services in Warrington since May 2012 as a community interest company. That means that it is designed to re-invest in services and facilities; it is not a private business, it does not have shareholders and it does not own any assets that it can leverage bank loans against. It is therefore specifically vulnerable to the economic storm that we face.
As LiveWire has noted in a letter to me:
“Our income-generating activities underpin discounted access to many health programmes—such as rehabilitation, prehabilitation and preventative services—to some of the poorest and most in need of support. Services that would not be operated in a market driven solely on a for-profit basis.”
Now, due to increased energy costs, higher than budgeted pay awards for staff, a lack of customers returning post covid, customer cancellations because they have less disposable income due to the massively increased cost of living, and increased prices for raw materials and services, LiveWire tells me that its expenditure has increased by £2.3 million compared with 2021, which is not sustainable. It is at serious risk of being unable to operate after March 2023 without financial support, despite increased demand for swimming and aquatics activity, for example.
I have already written to the Chancellor about this situation, and would like to repeat LiveWire’s plea to this Minister today. First, charitable trusts and community interest companies should be named as a vulnerable sector in January’s energy review, with support offered beyond March 2023. Secondly, any future cap should be more generous than the current cap, which still resulted in significant losses for CICs such as LiveWire.
I am very aware of the demands on the public purse, but I also note the role that this sector plays in keeping the public healthy. We all know that preventive healthcare is far cheaper than later interventions, and these facilities in the heart of our communities, which subsidise getting fit and keeping healthy for people who need it most, are truly vital. Swim England states that swimming alone saves the NHS more than £357 million every year, and the contribution to the nation’s mental health will be enormous.
We have a chronic lack of long-course pools across the country, and it is tragic to think that access even to our short-course pools could be even further curtailed. Swimming is a vital life skill, especially in communities such as mine, which have rivers and canals running through them—it saves lives. It is also a vital skill for participation in other sports, especially rowing, which we are trying to make more inclusive and accessible in Warrington, through the incredible work of Warrington Youth Rowing and the Warrington Rowing Club.
When we consider all the sports and activities that our leisure sector supports, including things such as self-defence classes for women and classes catered specifically towards our more elderly residents, we see how much of a loss it would be to our communities if these became less accessible to, or priced out, those who benefit from them the most. Public participation in public leisure fell by 35% between April 2021 and January 2022. It would be a false economy to let this sector flounder and close. I want to hear from the Minister and the Government what they will be doing to help it through this most difficult time, for all our sakes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
I am pleased to respond to this debate and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for securing it. The contributions that we have heard across the Chamber show the importance that this House places on the provision of good-quality public leisure facilities, and I think all hon. Members will agree that those spaces are vital to allowing people, wherever they may be in the country, to participate in sport and to lead an active lifestyle.
Hon. Members have spoken in this debate of the challenges faced by their own local leisure centres, gyms and swimming pools. The most significant challenge is the rises in energy costs, further to the abhorrent Russian invasion of Ukraine, but there are other challenges with inflation, as the hon. Lady mentioned, the ability to keep qualified and dedicated staff and shortages of pool-cleaning chemicals. While a number of facilities are facing similar problems, no two are exactly the same—just as no two constituencies are the same, I guess.
The leisure sector as a whole has a wide range of stakeholders and operating models, encompassing providers from across the public, private and civil society sectors such as the community interest company in the hon. Lady’s constituency. Local authorities will choose the model that works best for them as part of their consideration of how they can best deliver their services for local communities.
In times such as these, I recognise that local authorities are having to make difficult decisions about which services to protect. I remind the House that leisure provision is not a statutory service for local authorities and, as such, may be deprioritised when it comes to setting budgets for the next year. However, I urge my colleagues in local government to consider the essential services that those facilities provide for their communities, because I firmly believe that public leisure facilities provide so much in the way of positive opportunities and benefits to those communities.
Charlotte Nichols
In my own area in Warrington, the funding available from central Government has been cut by about 60% over the last 10 years, which means that approximately 70% of the council’s spending is on statutory services, particularly things such as adult social care. Clearly ,those cannot be cut back on, and we expect the proportion of council spending spent on statutory services will only rise, as an ageing population will have more complex health needs. While I appreciate what the Minister says, that leisure facilities cannot be prioritised since they are not a statutory service but that he encourages councils to do all they can to support them, does he not agree that councils are being put in a difficult position, and that without additional public support and finance, they are fundamentally not able to do that?
Stuart Andrew
I recognise those challenges. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the additional support for local authorities in the recent autumn statement, and I hope that will help in these challenging circumstances.
I was referring to the positive opportunities and the benefits that leisure centres provide. I am sure hon. Members are aware that we have very high levels of inactivity in this country, as the hon. Lady mentioned, with almost one third of adults—more than 12 million people—classed as inactive. On top of that, 2.2 million, or 30%, of children are inactive.
While the figures show some signs of improvement post pandemic, we know that more work needs to be done to target the long-term inactive and make sure everyone can receive the benefits that being active brings. We will be publishing our sporting strategy, which will outline how we intend to do that, in the new year. A key part of that strategy will be making sure that people throughout the country, from Carlisle to Cornwall and west London to Warrington, have access to the right facilities for them to get active and feel part of their community.
That is why public leisure centres and facilities are so important: they provide a wide range of opportunities to be physically active—badminton, swimming or even Zumba— at low cost, and in doing so they become hubs for the community, places to meet and to make new friends and new social connections. They also offer jobs and volunteering opportunities to the communities they are in, and the hon. Lady gave a good example of the benefits those centres bring.
Why is this access to sport and physical activity so important? It is proven that regular activity genuinely helps to avoid a range of health issues, whether physical or mental, and that eases the pressure on our NHS. It helps to bring communities closer together, and gives young people essential leadership and teamwork skills. We know that sport works. I know from my own personal experience, when I do get the chance to go to the gym, that it is a great opportunity to reset and refresh, and hopefully that helps me to do my job in a better way.
Speaking to staff at my local facilities, and through conversations with people across the sector, I know that the sport and fitness sector has endured challenging times over the past few years. During the pandemic, the Government prioritised access to sport. We encouraged people to get out once a day for a walk. We worked with gyms to make sure they could reopen safely. In addition, we provided the £100 million national leisure recovery fund, which was part of more than £1 billion of support to the sport sector to ensure its survival.
On top of that, we continue to invest heavily in sport and physical activity through our arm’s-length body, Sport England, which receives over £100 million a year in Exchequer funding, along with over £200 million from the players of the National Lottery. We are continuing to support the sector now as we face the challenges of increased energy costs. Our energy bill relief scheme has limited energy costs for swimming pools, leisure centres, gyms and sports clubs throughout the country to half of what they could have been with wholesale prices as they are. That support will continue over the winter until March next year.
Charlotte Nichols
On a point of clarification, I asked what support would be available beyond March 2023, because a lot of leisure centres look as if they will not be able to survive after that cliff edge. I know the Minister will not be able to make a financial commitment today, but is he having conversations with the Treasury about the continuance of a scheme of that kind, in the hope that that support might continue beyond March 2023?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady rightly predicts that I cannot make a financial statement here—my colleagues in the Treasury would be extremely angry with me if I did—but I will come on in a moment to some of the work we are doing.
We have also provided business rates relief for those providing these essential services in the private sector, which will remain in place until March 2024. Throughout the implementation of the energy bill relief scheme, officials in my Department and I have been working closely with partners in the sector, such as ukactive, and with colleagues in local government, such as the Local Government Association, to monitor the scheme’s impact and make sure that we are fully aware of the situation facing the leisure sector. Their feedback and the insights they have been providing and sharing with us are so important for ensuring that support can be continued where it is needed most. I take this opportunity to thank them all, as well as the staff at Sport England who have supported us with the review.
The energy bill relief scheme has been under review over the last months, and officials in my Department have engaged with colleagues in Treasury to make sure we have made the strongest case possible for further support. Outside of that energy review, the Department is continuing to review how best we can support the provisions of leisure centres across the country. That includes ongoing engagement with our partners in the public, private and civil society sectors, and across Government, and we will continue to make sure that we support those essential services every way we can. As I have said throughout my speech, I recognise the huge benefit that those services provide to our communities, to the health of the nation and, ultimately, to many of the services that Government provide. I thank the hon. Lady again for bringing this important matter to the Floor of the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I hope we are going to see the Minister’s Christmas tie on either Monday or Tuesday next week.
Question put and agreed to.
ONLINE SAFETY BILL (Third sitting)
Thursday 15th December 2022
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 December 2022 - (15 Dec 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Paul Scully)
I beg to move amendment 48, in clause 82, page 72, line 21, at end insert—
“(ca) a regulated user-to-user service meets the conditions in section (List of emerging Category 1 services)(2) if those conditions are met in relation to the user-to-user part of the service;”.
This is a technical amendment ensuring that references to user-to-user services in the new clause inserted by NC7 relate to the user-to-user part of the service.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 49.
Government new clause 7—List of emerging Category 1 services.
Paul Scully
These Government amendments confer a duty on Ofcom to create and publish a list of companies that are approaching the category 1 threshold to ensure that it proactively identifies emerging high-reach, high-influence companies and is ready to add them to the category 1 register without delay. That is being done in recognition of the rapid pace of change in the tech industry, in which companies can grow quickly. The changes mean that Ofcom can designate companies as category 1 at pace. That responds to concerns that platforms could be unexpectedly popular and quickly grow in size, and that there could be delays in capturing them as category 1 platforms. Amendments 48 and 49 are consequential on new clause 7, which confers a duty on Ofcom to create and publish a list of companies that are approaching the category 1 threshold. For those reasons, I recommend that the amendments be accepted.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It will come as no surprise to Members to hear that we have serious concerns about the system of categorisation and the threshold conditions for platforms and service providers, given our long-standing view that the approach taken is far too inflexible.
In previous sittings, we raised the concern that the Government have not provided enough clarity about what will happen if a service is required to shift from one category to another, and how long that will take. We remain unclear about that, about how shifting categories will work in practice, and about how long Ofcom will have to preside over such changes and decisions.
I have been following this Bill closely for just over a year, and I recognise that the online space is constantly changing and evolving. New technologies are popping up that will make this categorisation process even more difficult. The Government must know that their approach does not capture smaller, high-harm platforms, which we know—we have debated this several times—can be at the root of some of the most dangerous and harmful content out there. Will the Minister clarify whether the Government amendments will allow Ofcom to consider adding such small, high-harm platforms to category 1, given the risk of harm?
More broadly, we are pleased that the Government tabled new clause 7, which will require Ofcom to prepare and update a list of regulated user-to-user services that have 75% of the number of users of a category 1 service, and at least one functionality of a category 1 service, or one required combination of a functionality and another characteristic or factor of a category 1 service. It is absolutely vital that Ofcom, as the regulator, is sufficiently prepared, and that there is monitoring of regulated user-to-user services so that this regime is as flexible as possible and able to cope with the rapid changes in the online space. That is why the Opposition support new clause 7 and have not sought to amend it. Moreover, we also support Government amendments 48 and 49, which are technical amendments to ensure that new clause 7 references user-to-user services and assessments of those services appropriately. I want to press the Minister on how he thinks these categories will work, and on Ofcom’s role in that.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I agree with everything that the hon. Lady said. New clause 7 is important. It was missing from the earlier iterations of the Bill, and it makes sense to have it here, but it raises further concerns about the number of people who are required to use a service before it is classed as category 1. We will come later to our amendment 104 to schedule 11, which is about adding high-risk platforms to the categorisation.
I am still concerned that the numbers are a pretty blunt instrument for categorising something as category 1. The number may end up being particularly high. I think it would be very easy for the number to be wrong—for it to be too high or too low, and probably too high rather than too low.
If Twitter were to disappear, which, given the changing nature of the online world, is not outside the realms of possibility, we could see a significant number of other platforms picking up the slack. A lot of them might have fewer users, but the same level of risk as platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. I am still concerned that choosing a number is a very difficult thing to get right, and I am not totally convinced that the Government’s way of going about this is right.
Paul Scully
Ofcom will assess services that are close to meeting the threshold conditions of category 1 services and will publish a publicly available list of those emerging high-risk services. A service would have to meet two conditions to be added to the emerging services list: it would need at least 75% of the number of user figures in any category 1 threshold condition, and at least one functionality of a category 1 threshold condition, or one specified combination of a functionality and a characteristic or factor of a category 1 threshold condition.
Ofcom will monitor the emergence of new services. If it becomes apparent that a service has grown sufficiently to meet the threshold of becoming a category 1 service, Ofcom will be required to add that service to the register. The new clause and the consequential amendments take into account the possibility of quick growth.
Following the removal of “legal but harmful” duties, category 1 services will be subject to new transparency, accountability and free speech duties, as well as duties relating to protection for journalists and democratic content. Requiring all companies to comply with that full range of category 1 duties would pose a disproportionate regulatory burden on smaller companies that do not exert the same influence on public discourse, and that would possibly divert those companies’ resources away from tackling vital tasks.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the risk assessments for illegal content—the priority illegal offences; the worst kind of content—apply to all services, whether or not they are category 1?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All companies will still have to tackle the risk assessment, and will have to remove illegal content. We are talking about the extra bits that could take a disproportionate amount of resource from core functions that we all want to see around child protection.
Alex Davies-Jones
I would push the Minister further. He mentioned that there will not be an onus on companies to tackle the “legal but harmful” duty now that it has been stripped from the Bill, but we know that disinformation, particularly around elections in this country, is widespread on these high-harm platforms, and they will not be in scope of category 2. We have debated that at length. We have debated the time it could take Ofcom to act and put those platforms into category 1. Given the potential risk of harm to our democracy as a result, will the Minister press Ofcom to act swiftly in that regard? We cannot put that in the Bill now, but time is of the essence.
Paul Scully
Absolutely. The Department has techniques for dealing with misinformation and disinformation as well, but we will absolutely push Ofcom to work as quickly as possible. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the former Secretary of State, has said, once an election is done, it is done and it cannot be undone.
Damian Collins
Could the Minister also confirm that the provisions of the National Security Bill read across to the Online Safety Bill? Where disinformation is disseminated by networks operated by hostile foreign states, particularly Russia, as has often been the case, that is still in scope. That will still require a risk assessment for all platforms, whether or not they are category 1.
Paul Scully
Indeed. We need to take a wide-ranging, holistic view of disinformation and misinformation, especially around election times. There is a suite of measures available to us, but it is still worth pushing Ofcom to make sure that it works as quickly as possible.
Amendment 48 agreed to.
Amendment made: 49, in clause 82, page 72, line 23, after “conditions” insert
“or the conditions in section (List of emerging Category 1 services)(2)”.—(Paul Scully.)
This is a technical amendment ensuring that references to assessments of user-to-user services in the new clause inserted by NC7 relate to the user-to-user part of the service.
Clause 82, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11
Categories of regulated user-to-user services and regulated search services: regulations
Paul Scully
I beg to move amendment 76, in schedule 11, page 213, line 11, at end insert
“, and
(c) any other characteristics of that part of the service or factors relating to that part of the service that the Secretary of State considers relevant.”
This amendment provides that regulations specifying Category 1 threshold conditions for the user-to-user part of regulated user-to-user services must also include conditions relating to any other characteristics of that part of the service or factors relating to that part of the service that the Secretary of State considers relevant.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 77 to 79, 81 to 84, 86 to 91 and 93.
Paul Scully
These Government amendments seek to change the approach to category 1 designation, following the removal from the Bill of the adult safety duties and the concept of “legal but harmful” content. Through the proposed new duties on category 1 services, we aim to hold companies accountable to their terms of service, as we have said. I seek to remove all requirements on category 1 services relating to harmful content, so it is no longer appropriate to designate them with reference to harm. Consequently, the amendments in this group change the approach to designating category 1 services, to ensure that only the largest companies with the greatest influence over public discourse are designated as category 1 services.
Specifically, these amendments will ensure that category 1 services are so designated where they have functionalities that enable easy, quick and wide dissemination of user-generated content, and the requirement of category 1 services to meet a number of users threshold remains unchanged.
The amendments also give the Secretary of State the flexibility to consider other characteristics of services, as well as other relevant factors. Those characteristics might include a service’s functionalities, the user base, the business model, governance, and other systems and processes. That gives the designation process greater flexibility to ensure that services are designated category 1 services only when they have significant influence over public discourse.
The amendments also seek to remove the use of criteria for content that is harmful to adults from category 2B, and we have made a series of consequential amendments to the designation process for categories 2A and 2B to ensure consistency.
Alex Davies-Jones
I have commented extensively on the flaws in the categorisation process in this and previous Committees, so I will not retread old ground. I accept the amendments in this grouping. They show that the Government are prepared to broaden the criteria for selecting which companies are likely to be in category 1. That is a very welcome, if not subtle, shift in the right direction.
The amendments bring the characteristics of a company’s service into consideration, which will be a slight improvement on the previous focus on size and functionality, so we welcome them. The distinction is important, because size and functionality alone are obviously very vague indicators of harm, or the threat of harm.
We are pleased to see that the Government have allowed for a list to be drawn up of companies that are close to the margins of category 1, or that are emerging as category 1 companies. This is a positive step for regulatory certainty, and I hope that the Minister will elaborate on exactly how the assessment will be made.
However, I draw the Minister’s attention to Labour’s long-held concern about the Bill’s over-reliance on powers afforded to the Secretary of State of the day. We debated this concern in a previous sitting. I press the Minister again on why these amendments, and the regulations around the threshold conditions, are ultimately only for the Secretary of State to consider, depending on characteristics or factors that only he or she, whoever they may be, deems relevant.
We appreciate that the regulations need some flexibility, but we have genuine concerns—indeed, colleagues from all parties have expressed such concerns—that the Bill will give the Secretary of State far too much power to determine how the entire online safety regime is imposed. I ask the Minister to give the Committee an example of a situation in which it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to make such changes without any consultation with stakeholders or the House.
It is absolutely key for all of us that transparency should lie at the heart of the Bill. Once again, we fear that the amendments are a subtle attempt by the Government to impose on what is supposed to be an independent regulatory process the whim of one person. I would appreciate assurance on that point. The Minister knows that these concerns have long been held by me and colleagues from all parties, and we are not alone in those concerns. Civil society groups are also calling for clarity on exactly how decisions will be made, and particularly on what information will be used to determine a threshold. For example, do the Government plan on quantifying a user base, and will the Minister explain how the regime would work in practice, when we know that a platform’s user base can fluctuate rapidly? We have seen that already with Mastodon; the latter’s users have increased incredibly as a result of Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter. I hope that the Minister can reassure me about those concerns. He will know that this is a point of contention for colleagues from across the House, and we want to get the Bill right before we progress to Report.
Kirsty Blackman
My understanding is that only a very small number of platforms will reach the category 1 threshold. We are talking about the platforms that everybody has heard of—Facebook, Twitter and so on—and not about the slightly smaller platforms that lots of people have heard of and use. We are probably not talking about platforms such as Twitch, which has a much smaller user base than Facebook and Twitter but has a massive reach. My concern continues to be that the number threshold does not take into account the significant risks of harm from some of those platforms.
I have a specific question about amendment 76. I agree with my Labour Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Pontypridd, that it shows that the Government are willing to take into account other factors. However, I am concerned that the Secretary of State is somehow being seen as the arbiter of knowledge—the person who is best placed to make the decisions—when much more flexibility could have been given to Ofcom instead. From all the evidence I have heard and all the people I have spoken to, Ofcom seems much more expert in dealing with what is happening today than any Secretary of State could ever hope to be. There is no suggestion about how the Secretary of State will consult, get information and make decisions on how to change the threshold conditions.
It is important that other characteristics that may not relate to functionalities are included if we discover that there is an issue with them. For example, I have mentioned livestreaming on a number of occasions in Committee, and we know that livestreaming is inherently incredibly risky. The Secretary of State could designate livestreaming as a high-risk functionality, and it could be included, for example, in category 1. I do not know whether it will be, but we know that there are risks there. How will the Secretary of State get that information?
There is no agreement to set up a user advocacy board. The requirement for Ofcom to consult the Children’s Commissioner will be brought in later, but organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which deals with phone calls from children asking for help, are most aware of emerging threats. My concern is that the Secretary of State cannot possibly be close enough to the issue to make decisions, unless they are required to consult and listen to organisations that are at the coal face and that regularly support people. I shall go into more detail about high-harm platforms when we come to amendment 104.
Paul Scully
The amendments give the Secretary of State the flexibility to consider other characteristics of services as well as other relevant factors, which include functionalities, user base, business model, governance, and other systems and processes. They effectively introduce greater flexibility into the designation process, so that category 1 services are designated only if they have significant influence over public discourse. Although the Secretary of State will make the regulations, Ofcom will carry out the objective and evidence-based process, which will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via statutory instruments. The Secretary of State will have due consultation with Ofcom at every stage, but to ensure flexibility and the ability to move fast, it is important that the Secretary of State has those powers.
Amendment 76 agreed to.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 104, in schedule 11, page 213, line 11, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations made under sub-paragraph (1) must provide for any regulated user-to-user service which OFCOM assesses as posing a very high risk of harm to be included within Category 1, regardless of the number of users.”
This amendment allows Ofcom to impose Category 1 duties on user-to-user services which pose a very high risk of harm.
I would say this, but I think that this is the most important amendment. The key area that the Government are getting wrong is the way in which platforms, providers or services will be categorised. The threshold is based on the number of users. It is the number of users “and” one of those other things, not the number of users “or” one of those other things; even that would make a significant difference.
The Secretary of State talked about the places that have a significant influence over public discourse. It is perfectly possible to have a significant influence over public discourse with a small number of users, or with a number of users that does not number into the millions. We have seen the spread of conspiracy theories that have originated and been perpetuated on very small platforms—very small, shady places on the internet that none of us has experienced or even heard of. Those are the places that have a massive impact and effect.
We know that one person can have a significant impact on the world and on people’s lives. We have heard about the physical harm that people can be incited to cause by the platforms they access, and the radicalisation and extremism they find themselves subject to. That can cause massive, damaging effects to anybody they choose to take physical action against, and to some of the most marginalised communities and groups in society. We are seeing an increase in the amount of hate crime and the number of people who believe conspiracy theories, and not all of that is because of the spread of those things on Facebook and Twitter. It is because of the breadcrumbing and the spread that there can be on smaller platforms.
The most extreme views do not necessarily tip over into “illegal” or “incitement”; they do not actually say, “Please go out and kill everybody in this particular group.” They say, “This particular group is responsible for all of ills you feel and for every negative thing that is happening in your life”, and people are therefore driven to take extremist, terrorist action. That is a significant issue.
I want to talk about a couple of platforms. Kiwi Farms, which is no longer in existence and has been taken down, was a very small platform that dramatically damaged the lives of trans people in particular. It was a platform where people went to incite hatred and give out the addresses of folk who they knew were members of the trans community. Some of those people had to move to another continent to get away from the physical violence and attacks they faced as a result of the behaviour on that incredibly small platform, which very few people will have heard about.
Kiwi Farms has been taken down because the internet service providers decided that it was too extreme and they could not possibly host it any more. That was eventually recognised and change was made, but the influence that that small place had on lives—the difficulties and harm it caused—is untold. Some of that did tip over into illegality, but some did not.
I also want to talk about the places where there is a significant amount of pornography. I am not going to say that I have a problem with pornography online; the internet will always have pornography on it. It attracts a chunk of people to spend time online, and some of that pornography is on large mainstream sites. Searches for incest, underage girls, or black women being abused all get massive numbers of hits. There is a significant amount of pornography on these sites that is illegal, that pretends to be illegal or that acts against people with protected characteristics. Research has found that a significant proportion—significantly more than a half—of pornography on mainstream sites that involves black women also involves violence. That is completely and totally unacceptable, and has a massive negative impact on society, whereby it reinforces negativity and discrimination against groups that are already struggling with being discriminated against and that do not experience the privilege of a cis white man.
It is really grim that we are requiring a number of users to be specified, when we know the harm that caused by platforms that do not have 10 million or 20 million United Kingdom users. I do not know what the threshold will be, but I know it will be too high to include a lot of platforms that have a massive effect. The amendment is designed specifically to give Ofcom the power to designate as category 1 any service that it thinks has a very high risk of harm; I have not set the bar particularly low. Now that the Minister has increased the levels of transparency that will be required for category 1 platforms, it is even more important that we subject extremist sites and platforms—the radicalising ones, which are perpetuating discrimination—to a higher bar and require them to have the transparency that they need as a category 1 service. This is a place where the Bill could really make a difference and change lives, and I am really concerned that it is massively failing to do so.
The reason I have said that it should be Ofcom’s responsibility to designate category 1 services is on the basis that it has the experts who will be looking at all the risk assessments, dealing with companies on a day-to-day basis, and seeing the harms and transparencies that the rest of us will not be able to see. The reporting mechanisms will be public for only some of the category 1 platforms, and we will not be able to find out the level of information that Ofcom has, so it is right that it should be responsible for designating sites as having a very high risk of harm. That is why I tabled the amendment, which would make a massive difference to people who are the most discriminated against as it is and who are the most at risk of harm from extremism. I urge the Minister to think again.
Alex Davies-Jones
I rise briefly to support everything the hon. Member for Aberdeen North just said. We have long called for the Bill to take a harm-led approach; indeed, the Government initially agreed with us, as when it was in its first iteration it was called the Online Harms Bill rather than the Online Safety Bill. Addressing harm must be a central focus of the Bill, as we know extremist content is perpetuated on smaller, high-harm platforms; this is something that the Antisemitism Policy Trust and Hope not Hate have long called for with regards to the Bill.
I want to put on the record our huge support for the amendment. Should the hon. Lady be willing to push it to a vote—I recognise that we are small in number—we will absolutely support her.
Damian Collins
I want to speak briefly to the amendment. I totally understand the reasons that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has tabled it, but in reality, the kinds of activities she describes would be captured anyway, because most would fall within the remit of the priority illegal harms that all platforms and user-to-user services have to follow. If there were occasions when they did not, being included in category 1 would mean that they would be subject to the additional transparency of terms of service, but the smaller platforms that allow extremist behaviour are likely to have extremely limited terms of service. We would be relying on the priority illegal activity to set the minimum safety standards, which Ofcom would be able to do.
It would also be an area where we would want to move at pace. Even if we wanted to bring in extra risk assessments on terms of service that barely exist, the time it would take to do that would not give a speedy resolution. It is important that in the way Ofcom exercises its duties, it does not just focus on the biggest category 1 platforms but looks at how risk assessments for illegal activity are conducted across a wide range of services in scope, and that it has the resources needed to do that.
Even within category 1, it is important that is done. We often cite TikTok, Instagram and Facebook as the biggest platforms, but I recently spoke to a teacher in a larger secondary school who said that by far the worst platform they have to deal with in terms of abuse, bullying, intimidation, and even sharing of intimate images between children, is Snapchat. We need to ensure that those services get the full scrutiny they should have, because they are operating at the moment well below their stated terms of service, and in contravention of the priority illegal areas of harm.
Paul Scully
As debated earlier, we are removing the adult safety duties from the Bill, which means that no company will face any duties related to legal but harmful content. In their place, the Government are introducing new transparency accountability, and free speech duties on category 1 services. They have been discussed in detail earlier this session.
It would not be proportionate to apply those new duties to smaller services, but, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, they will still have to comply with the illegal content and child safety duties if they are accessed by children. Those services have limited resources, and blanket applying additional duties on them would divert those resources away from complying with the illegal content and child safety duties. That would likely weaken the duties’ impact on tackling criminal activity and protecting children.
The new duties are about user choice and accountability on the largest platforms—if users do not want to use smaller harmful sites, they can choose not to—but, in recognition of the rapid pace with which companies can grow, I introduced an amendment earlier to create a watchlist of companies that are approaching the category 1 threshold, which will ensure that Ofcom can monitor rapidly scaling companies, reduce any delay in designating companies as category 1 services, and apply additional obligations on them.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North talked about ISPs acting with respect to Kiwi Farms. I talked on Tuesday about the need for a holistic approach. There is not one silver bullet. It is important to look at Government, the platforms, parenting and ISPs, because that makes up a holistic view of how the internet works. It is the multi-stakeholder framework of governing the internet in its entirety, rather than the Government trying to do absolutely everything. We have talked a lot about illegality, and I think that a lot of the areas in that case were illegal; the hon. Lady described some very distasteful things. None the less, with the introduction of the watchlist, I do not believe amendment 104 is required.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe made a good point. I do not disagree that Ofcom will have a significant role in policing platforms that are below the category 1 threshold. I am sure it will be very hands on, particularly with platforms that have the highest risk and are causing the most harm.
I still do not think that is enough. I do not think that the Minister’s change with regard to emerging platforms should be based on user numbers. It is reasonable for us to require platforms that encourage extremism, spread conspiracy theories and have the most horrific pornography on them to meet a higher bar of transparency. I do not really care if they only have a handful of people working there. I am not fussed if they say, “Sorry, we can’t do this.” If they cannot keep people safe on their platform, they should have to meet a higher transparency bar, provide more information on how they are meeting their terms of service and provide toggles—all those things. It does not matter how small these platforms are. What matters is that they have massive risks and cause massive amounts of harm. It is completely reasonable that we hold them to a higher regulatory bar. On that basis, I will push the amendment to a vote.
Alex Davies-Jones
I do not wish to test the Committee’s patience. I know we need to get the Bill over the line quickly, so I do not wish to delay it by talking over old ground that we covered in the previous Public Bill Committee on clauses that we support. We do support the Government on this clause, but I will make some brief comments because, as we know, clause 115 is important. It lists the enforceable requirements for which failure to comply can trigger enforcement action.
The Chair
Order. I think the hon. Lady is speaking to clause 115. This is Government amendments 54 and 55 to clause 115. I will call you when we get to that place, which will be very soon, so stay alert.
Alex Davies-Jones
Apologies, Dame Angela. I got carried away. “Section (Duty not to act against users except in accordance with terms of service) Acting against users only in accordance with terms of service Section (Further duties about terms of service) Terms of service”
Amendments made: 54, in clause 115, page 98, leave out lines 35 and 36.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 6 and 7 (removal of clauses 12 and 13).
Amendment 55, in clause 115, page 99, line 19, at end insert—
—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment ensures that OFCOM are able to use their enforcement powers in Chapter 6 of Part 7 in relation to a breach of any of the new duties imposed by NC3 and NC4.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Thank you, Dame Angela—take 2.
Clause 115 focuses on the enforcement action that may be taken and will be triggered if a platform fails to comply. Given that the enforceable requirements may include, for example, duties to carry out and report on risk assessments and general safety duties, it is a shame that the Government have not seen the merits of going further with these provisions. I point the Minister to the previous Public Bill Committee, where Labour made some sensible suggestions for how to remedy the situation. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have made it abundantly clear that more access to, and availability of, data and information about systems and processes would improve understanding of the online environment.
We cannot and should not rely solely on Ofcom to act as problems arise when they could be spotted earlier by experts somewhere else. We have already heard the Minister outline the immense task that Ofcom has ahead of it to monitor risk assessments and platforms, ensuring that platforms comply and taking action where there is illegal content and a risk to children. It is important that Ofcom has at its disposal all the help it needs.
It would be helpful if there were more transparency about how the enforcement provisions work in practice. We have repeatedly heard that without independent researchers accessing data on relevant harm, platforms will have no real accountability for how they tackle online harm. I hope that the Minister can clarify why, once again, the Government have not seen the merit of encouraging transparency in their approach. It would be extremely valuable and helpful to both the online safety regime and the regulator as a whole, and it would add merit to the clause.
Paul Scully
We have talked about the fact that Ofcom will have robust enforcement powers. It can direct companies to take specific steps to come into compliance or to remedy failure to comply, as well as issue fines and apply to the courts for business disruption measures. Indeed, Ofcom can institute criminal proceedings against senior managers who are responsible for compliance with an information notice, when they have failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure the company’s compliance with that notice. That criminal offence will commence two months after Royal Assent.
Ofcom will be required to produce enforcement guidelines, as it does in other areas that it regulates, explaining how it proposes to use its enforcement powers. It is important that Ofcom is open and transparent, and that companies and people using the services understand exactly how to comply. Ofcom will provide those guidelines. People will be able to see who are the users of the services. The pre-emptive work will come from the risk assessments that platforms themselves will need to produce.
We will take a phased approach to bringing the duties under the Bill into effect. Ofcom’s initial focus will be on illegal content, so that the most serious harms can be addressed as soon as possible. When those codes of practice and guidelines come into effect, the hon. Member for Pontypridd will see some of the transparency and openness that she is looking for.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 115, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55
Review
Amendment made: 56, in clause 155, page 133, line 27, after “Chapter 1” insert “or 2A”.—(Paul Scully.)
Clause 155 is about a review by the Secretary of State of the regulatory framework established by this Bill. This amendment inserts a reference to Chapter 2A, which is the new Chapter expected to be formed by NC3 to NC6.
Kirsty Blackman
I am glad that there is a review function in the Bill. I have been a member of a lot of Bill Committees and Delegated Legislation Committees that have considered legislation that has no review function and that says, “This will be looked at in the normal course of departmental reviews.” We know that not all Departments always do such reviews. In fact, some Departments do under 50% of the reviews that they are supposed to do, and whether reviews take place is not checked. We therefore we do not find out whether a piece of legislation has had the intended effect. I am sure some will have done, but some definitely will not.
If the Government do not internally review whether a Bill or piece of delegated legislation has had the effect it was supposed to have, they cannot say whether it has been a success and cannot make informed decisions about future legislation, so having a review function in this Bill is really good. However, that function is insufficient as it is not enough for the Secretary of State to do the review and we will not see enough outputs from Ofcom.
The Bill has dominated the lives of a significant number of parliamentarians for the past year—longer, in some cases—because it is so important and because it has required so much scrutiny, thinking and information gathering to get to this stage. That work will not go away once the Bill is enacted. Things will not change or move at once, and parts of the legislation will not work as effectively as they could, as is the case for any legislation, whether moved by my Government or somebody else’s. In every piece of legislation there will be things that do not pan out as intended, but a review by the Secretary of State and information from Ofcom about how things are working do not seem to be enough.
Committee members, including those on the Government Benches, have suggested having a committee to undertake the review or adding that function to the responsibilities of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. We know that the DCMS Committee is busy and will be looking into a significant number of wide-ranging topics, so it would be difficult for it to keep a watching brief on the Online Safety Bill.
The previous Minister said that there will be some sort of reviewing mechanism, but I would like further commitment from the Government that the Bill will be kept under review and that the review process as set out will not be the only type of review that happens as things move and change and the internet develops. Many people talk about more widespread use of virtual reality, for example, but there could be other things that we have not even heard of yet. After the legislation is implemented, it will be years before every part of the Bill is in action and every requirement in the legislation is working. By the time we get to 2027-28—or whenever every part of the legislation is working—things could have changed again and be drastically different to today. Indeed, the legislation may not be fit for purpose when it first starts to work, so will the Minister provide more information about what the review process will look like on an ongoing basis? The Government say this is world-leading legislation, but how we will ensure that that is the case and that it makes a difference to the safety and experience of both children and adults online?
Paul Scully
I am glad that we are all in agreement on the need for a review. It is important that we have a comprehensive and timely review of the regulatory regime and how it is built into legislation. It is important that we understand that the legislation has the impact that we intend.
The legislation clearly sets out what the review must consider, how Ofcom is carrying out its role and if the legislation is effective in dealing with child protection, which as the hon. Lady rightly says is its core purpose. We have struck the balance of specifying two to five years after the regime comes into force, because it provides a degree of flexibility to future Ministers to judge when it should happen. None the less, I take the hon. Lady’s point that technology is developing. That is why this is a front-footed first move in this legislation, when other countries are looking at what we are doing; because of that less prescriptive approach to technologies, the legislation can be flexible and adapt to emerging new technologies. Inevitably, this will not be the last word. Some of the things in the Digital Economy Act 2017, for example, are already out of date, as is some of the other legislation that was put in place in the early 2000s. We will inevitably come back to this, but I think we have the right balance at the moment in terms of the timing.
I do not think we need to bed in whom we consult, but wider consultation will none the less be necessary to ascertain the effectiveness of the legislation.
Damian Collins
I am following carefully what the Minister says, but I would say briefly that a lot of the debate we have had at all stages of the Bill has rested on how we believe Ofcom will use the powers it has been given, and we need to make sure that it does that. We need to ensure that it is effective and that it has the resources it needs. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) makes an important point that it may not be enough to rely on a Select Committee of the Lords or the Commons having the time to do that in the detail we would want. We might need to consider either a post-legislative scrutiny Committee or some other mechanism to ensure that there is the necessary level of oversight.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The report as is obviously has to be laid before Parliament and will form part of the package of parliamentary scrutiny. But, yes, we will consider how we can utilise the expertise of both Houses in post-legislative scrutiny. We will come back on that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 155, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 169
Individuals providing regulated services: liability
Amendment made: 57, in clause 169, page 143, line 15, at end insert—
“(fa) Chapter 2A of Part 4 (terms of service: transparency, accountability and freedom of expression);”.—(Paul Scully.)
Clause 169 is about liability of providers who are individuals. This amendment inserts a reference to Chapter 2A, which is the new Chapter expected to be formed by NC3 to NC6, so that individuals may be jointly and severally liable for the duties imposed by that Chapter.
Clause 169, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 183 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 17
Video-sharing platform services: transitional provision etc
Amendments made: 94, in schedule 17, page 235, line 43, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6 (removal of clause 12).
Amendment 95, in schedule 17, page 236, line 27, at end insert—
“(da) the duties set out in sections (Duty not to act against users except in accordance with terms of service) and (Further duties about terms of service) (terms of service);”.—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment ensures that services already regulated under Part 4B of the Communications Act 2003 (video-sharing platform services) are not required to comply with the new duties imposed by NC3 and NC4 during the transitional period.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Seventeenth schedule to the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Labour welcomes schedule 17, which the Government introduced on Report. We see this schedule as clarifying exactly how the existing video-sharing platform regime will be repealed and the transitional provisions that will apply to those providers as they transition to the online safety framework. The schedule is fundamentally important for both providers and users, as it establishes the formal requirements of these platforms as we move the requirement to this new legislation.
We welcome the clarification in paragraph 1(1) of the definition of a qualifying video-sharing service. On that point, I would be grateful if the Minister clarified the situation around livestreaming video platforms and whether this schedule would also apply to them. Throughout this Bill Committee, we have heard just how dangerous and harmful live video-sharing platforms can be, so this is an important point to clarify.
I have spoken at length about the importance of capturing the harms on these platforms, particularly in the context of child sexual exploitation being livestreamed online, which, thanks to the brilliant work of International Justice Mission, we know is a significant and widespread issue. I must make reference to the IJM’s findings from its recent White Paper, which highlighted the extent of the issue in the Philippines, which is widely recognised as a source country for livestreamed sexual exploitation of children. It found that traffickers often use cheap Android smartphones with pre-paid cellular data services to communicate with customers and produce and distribute explicit material. To reach the largest possible customer base, they often connect with sexually motivated offenders through everyday technology—the same platforms that the rest of us use to communicate with friends, family and co-workers.
One key issue in assessing the extent of online sexual exploitation of children is that we are entirely dependent on the detection of the crime, but the reality is that most current technologies that are widely used to detect various forms of online sexual exploitation of children are not designed to recognise livestreaming video services. This is an important and prolific issue, so I hope the Minister can assure me that the provisions in the schedule will apply to those platforms too.
Paul Scully
We are setting out in schedule 17 how the existing video-sharing platform regime will be repealed in the transitional provisions that apply to these providers as they transition to the online safety framework. My understanding is that it does include livestreaming, but I will obviously write to the hon. Lady if I have got that wrong. I am not sure there is a significant legal effect here. To protect children and treat services fairly while avoiding unnecessary burdens on business, we are maintaining the current user protections in the VSP regime while the online safety framework is being implemented. That approach to transition avoids the duplication of regulation.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 17, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 203
Interpretation: general
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 105, in clause 203, page 167, line 8, after “including” insert “but not limited to”.
This amendment makes clear that the definition provided for content is not exhaustive.
I am delighted that we have a new Minister, because I can make exactly the same speech as I made previously in Committee—don’t worry, I won’t—and he will not know.
I still have concerns about the definition of “content”. I appreciate that the Government have tried to include a number of things in the definition. It currently states:
“‘content’ means anything communicated by means of an internet service, whether publicly or privately, including written material or messages, oral communications, photographs, videos, visual images, music and data of any description”.
That is pretty wide-ranging, but I do not think it takes everything into account. I know that it uses the word “including”; it does not say “only limited to” or anything like that. If there is to be a list of stuff, it should be exhaustive. That is my idea of how the Bill should be.
I have suggested in amendment 105 that we add “not limited to” after “including” in order to be absolutely clear that the content that we are talking about includes anything. It may or may not be on this list. Something that is missing from the list is VR technology. If someone is using VR or immersive technology and is a character on the screen, they can see what the character is doing and move their body around as that character, and whatever they do is user-generated content. It is not explicitly included in the Bill, even though there is a list of things. I do not even know how that would be written down in any way that would make sense.
I have suggested adding “not limited to” to make it absolutely clear that this is not an exhaustive list of the things that could be considered to be user-generated content or content for the purposes of the Bill. It could be absolutely anything that is user-generated. If the Minister is able to make it absolutely clear that this is not an exhaustive list and that “content” could be anything that is user-generated, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I would be happy enough with that commitment.
Paul Scully
Indeed I can give that commitment. This is an indicative list, not an exhaustive list, for the reasons that the hon. Lady set out. Earlier, we discussed the fact that technology moves on, and she has come up with an interesting example. It is important to note that adding unnecessary words in legislation could lead to unforeseen outcomes when it is interpreted by courts, which is why we have taken this approach, but we think it does achieve the same thing.
Kirsty Blackman
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 58, in clause 203, page 167, leave out lines 26 to 31. —(Paul Scully.)
This amendment removes the definition of the “maximum summary term for either-way offences”, as that term has been replaced by references to the general limit in a magistrates’ court.
Kirsty Blackman
I would like to ask the Minister why this amendment has been tabled. I am not entirely clear. Could he give us some explanation of the intention behind the amendment? I am pretty sure it will be fine but, if he could just let us know what it is for, that would be helpful.
Paul Scully
I am happy to do so. Clause 203 sets out the interpretation of the terms used throughout the Bill. Amendment 58 removes a definition that is no longer required because the term is no longer in the Bill. It is as simple as that. The definition of relevant crime penalties under the Bill now uses a definition that has been updated in the light of changes to sentencing power in magistrates courts set out in the Judicial Review And Courts Act 2022. The new definition of
“general limit in a magistrates court”
is now included in the Interpretation Act 1978, so no definition is required in this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 58 accordingly agreed to.
Amendment made: 59, in clause 203, page 168, line 48, at end insert—
“and references to restrictions on access to a service or to content are to be read accordingly.” —(Paul Scully.)
NC2 states what is meant by restricting users’ access to content, and this amendment makes it clear that the propositions in clause 203 about access read across to references about restricting access.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
Once again, I will abuse the privilege of having a different Minister at the Dispatch Box and mention the fact that, in the definitions, “oral communications” is mentioned in line 9 that we already mentioned in terms of the definition of “content”. It is “oral communications” in this part of the Bill but “aural communications” in an earlier part of the Bill. I am still baffled as to why there is a difference. Perhaps we should have both included in both of these sections or perhaps there should be some level of consistency throughout the Bill.
The “aural communications” section that I mentioned earlier in clause 50 is the one of the parts that I am particularly concerned about because it could create a loophole. That is a different spelling of the word. I asked this last time. I am not convinced that the answer I got gave me any more clarity than I had previously. I would be keen to understand why there is a difference, if the difference is intentional and what the difference therefore is between “oral” and “aural” communications in terms of the Bill. My understanding is that oral communications are ones that are said and aural communications are ones that are heard. But, for the purposes of the Bill, those two things are really the same, unless user-generated content in which there is user-generated oral communication that no one can possibly hear is included. That surely does not fit into the definitions, because user-generated content is only considered if it is user-to-user—something that other people can see. Surely, oral communication would also be aural communication. In pretty much every instance that the Bill could possibly apply to, both definitions would mean the same thing. I understand the Minister may not have the answer to this at his fingertips, and I would be happy to hear from him later if that would suit him better.
Paul Scully
The clause provides legal certainty about the meaning of those terms as used in the Bill: things such as “content”, “encounter”, “taking down” and “terms of service”. That is what the clause is intended to do. It is intentional and is for the reasons the hon. Lady said. Oral means speech and speech only. Aural is speech and other sounds, which is what can be heard on voice calls. That includes music as well. One is speech. The other is the whole gamut.
Damian Collins
I am intrigued, because the hon. Member for Aberdeen North makes an interesting point. It is not one I have heard made before. Does the Minister think there is a distinction between oral and aural, where oral is live speech and aural is pre-recorded material that might be played back? Are those two are considered distinct?
Paul Scully
My knowledge is being tested, so I will write to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and make that available to the Committee. Coming back to the point she made about oral and aural on Tuesday about another clause on the exclusions, as I said, we have a narrow exemption to ensure that traditional phone calls are not subject to regulation. But that does mean that if a service such as Fortnite, which she spoke about previously, enables adults and children to have one-to-one oral calls, companies will still need to address the surrounding functionality around how that happens, because to enable that might cause harm—for example if an adult can contact an unknown child. That is still captured within the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
Platforms will have to address, for example, the ways in which users can communicate with people who are not on their friends list. Things like that and other ways in which communication can be set up will have to be looked at in the risk assessment. With Discord, for instance, where two people can speak to each other, Discord will have to look at the way those people got into contact with each other and the risks associated with that, rather than the conversation itself, even though the conversation might be the only bit that involves illegality.
Paul Scully
It is the functionalities around it that enable the voice conversation to happen.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 203, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 206
Extent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
I would like to welcome the Government’s clarification, particularly as an MP representing a devolved nation within the UK. It is important to clarify the distinction between the jurisdictions, and I welcome that this clause does that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 206 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 207
Commencement and transitional provision
Amendment made: 60, in clause 207, page 173, line 15, leave out “to” and insert “and”.—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 41 (removal of clause 55).
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Labour welcomes clause 207, which outlines the commencement and transitional provisions for the Bill to effectively come into existence. The Minister knows that Labour is concerned about the delays that have repeatedly held up the Bill’s progress, and I need not convince him of the urgent need for it to pass. I think contributions in Committee plus those from colleagues across the House as the Bill has progressed speak for themselves. The Government have repeatedly claimed they are committed to keeping children safe online, but have repeatedly failed to bring forward this legislation. We must now see commitments from the Minister that the Bill, once enacted, will make a difference right away.
Labour has specific concerns shared with stakeholders, from the Age Verification Providers Association to the Internet Watch Foundation, the NSPCC and many more, about the road map going forward. Ofcom’s plan for enforcement already states that it will not begin enforcement on harm to children from user-to-user content under part 3 of the Bill before 2025. Delays to the Bill as well as Ofcom’s somewhat delayed enforcement plans mean that we are concerned that little will change in the immediate future or even in the short term. I know the Minister will stand up and say that if the platforms want to do the right thing, there is nothing stopping them from doing so immediately, but as we have seen, they need convincing to take action when it counts, so I am not convinced that platforms will do the right thing.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
If the Government’s argument is that there is nothing to stop platforms taking such actions early, why are we discussing the Bill at all? Platforms have had many years to implement such changes, and the very reason we need this Bill is that they have not been.
Alex Davies-Jones
Exactly. My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point that goes to the heart of why we are here in the first place. If the platforms were not motivated by commercial interest and we could trust them to do the right thing on keeping children safe and reducing harm on their platforms, we would not require this legislation in the first place. But sadly, we are where we are, which is why it is even more imperative that we get on with the job, that Ofcom is given the tools to act swiftly and tries to reduce the limit of when they come into effect and that this legislation is enacted so that it actually makes a lasting difference.
Ofcom has already been responsible for regulating video-sharing platforms for two years, yet still, despite being in year 3, it is only asking websites to provide a plan as to how they will be compliant. That means the reality is that we can expect little on child protection before 2027-28, which creates a massive gap compared with public expectations of when the Bill will be passed. We raised these concerns last time, and I felt little assurance from the Minister in post last time, so I am wondering whether the current Minister can improve on his predecessor by ensuring a short timeline for when exactly the Bill can be implemented and Ofcom can act.
We all understand the need for the Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North just pointed out. That is why we have been supportive in Committee and throughout the passage of the Bill. But the measures that the Bill introduces must come into force as soon as is reasonably possible. Put simply, the industry is ready and users want to be protected online and are ready too. It is just the Government, sadly, and the regulator that would be potentially holding up implementation of the legislation.
The Minister has failed to concede on any of the issues that we have raised in Committee, despite being sympathetic and supportive. His predecessor was also incredibly supportive and sympathetic on everything we raised in Committee, yet failed to take into account a single amendment or issue that we raised. I therefore make a plea to this Minister to at least see the need to press matters and the timescale that is needed here. We have not sought to formally amend this clause, so I seek the Minister’s assurance that this legislation will be dealt with swiftly. I urge him to work with Labour, SNP colleagues and colleagues across the House to ensure that the legislation and the provisions in it are enacted and that there are no further unnecessary delays.
Paul Scully
Our intention is absolutely to get this regime operational as soon as possible after Royal Assent. We have to get to Royal Assent first, so I am looking forward to working with all parties in the other House to get the legislation to that point. After that, we have to ensure that the necessary preparations are completed effectively and that service providers understand exactly what is expected of them. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Warrington North about service providers, the key difference from what happened in the years that led to this legislation being necessary is that they now will know exactly what is expected of them—and it is literally being expected of them, with legislation and with penalties coming down the line. They should not be needing to wait for the day one switch-on. They can be testing and working through things to ensure that the system does work on day one, but they can do that months earlier.
The legislation does require some activity that can be carried out only after Royal Assent, such as public consultation or laying of secondary legislation. The secondary legislation is important. We could have put more stuff in primary legislation, but that would belie the fact that we are trying to make this as flexible as possible, for the reasons that we have talked about. It is so that we do not have to keep coming back time and again for fear of this being out of date almost before we get to implementation in the first place.
However, we are doing things at the moment. Since November 2020, Ofcom has begun regulation of harmful content online through the video-sharing platform regulatory regime. In December 2020, Government published interim codes of practice on terrorist content and activity and sexual exploitation and abuse online. Those will help to bridge the gap until the regulator becomes operational. In June 2021, we published “safety by design” guidance, and information on a one-stop-shop for companies on protecting children online. In July 2021, we published the first Government online media literacy strategy. We do encourage stakeholders, users and families to engage with and help to promote that wealth of material to minimise online harms and the threat of misinformation and disinformation. But clearly, we all want this measure to be on the statute book and implemented as soon as possible. We have talked a lot about child protection, and that is the core of what we are trying to do here.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 207, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
OFCOM’s guidance: content that is harmful to children and user empowerment
“(1) OFCOM must produce guidance for providers of Part 3 services which contains examples of content or kinds of content that OFCOM consider to be, or consider not to be— OFCOM must produce guidance for providers of Category 1 services which contains examples of content or kinds of content that OFCOM consider to be, or consider not to be, content to which section 14(2) applies (see section 14(8A)).
(a) primary priority content that is harmful to children, or
(b) priority content that is harmful to children.
(2) Before producing any guidance under this section (including revised or replacement guidance), OFCOM must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.
(3) OFCOM must publish guidance under this section (and any revised or replacement guidance).”—(Paul Scully.)
This new clause requires OFCOM to give guidance to providers in relation to the kinds of content that OFCOM consider to be content that is harmful to children and content relevant to the duty in clause 14(2) (user empowerment).
Brought up, and read the First time.
Paul Scully
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Government are committed to empowering adults to have greater control over their online experience, and to protecting children from seeing harmful content online. New clause 1 places a new duty on Ofcom to produce and publish guidance for providers of user-to-user regulated services, in relation to the crucial aims of empowering adults and providers having effective systems and processes in place. The guidance will provide further clarity, including through
“examples of content or kinds of content that OFCOM consider to be…primary priority”
or
“priority content that is harmful to children.”
Ofcom will also have to produce guidance that sets out examples of content that it considers to be relevant to the user empowerment duties, as set out in amendment 15 to clause 14.
It is really important that expert opinion is considered in the development of this guidance, and the new clause places a duty on Ofcom to consult with relevant persons when producing sets of guidance. That will ensure that the views of subject matter experts are reflected appropriately.
Alex Davies-Jones
Labour is pleased to see the introduction of the new clause, which clarifies the role of Ofcom in delivering guidance to providers about their duties. Specifically, the new clause will require Ofcom to give guidance to providers on the kind of content that Ofcom considers to be harmful to children, or relevant to the user empowerment duty in clause 14. That is a very welcome addition indeed.
Labour remains concerned about exactly how these so-called user empowerment tools will work in practice—we have discussed that at length—and let us face it: we have had little assurance from the Minister on that point. We welcome the new clause, as it clarifies what guidance providers can expect to receive from Ofcom once the Bill is finally enacted. We can all recognise that Ofcom has a colossal task ahead of it—the Minister said so himself—so it is particularly welcome that the guidance will be subject to consultation with those that it deems appropriate. I can hope only that that will include the experts, and the many groups that provided expertise, support and guidance on internet regulation long before the Bill even received its First Reading, a long time ago. There are far too many of those experts and groups to list, but it is fundamental that the experts who often spot online harms before they properly emerge be consulted and included in this process if we are to truly capture the priority harms to children, as the new clause intends.
We also welcome the clarification in subsection (2) that Ofcom will be required to provide “examples of content” that would be considered to be—or not be—harmful. These examples will be key to ensuring that the platforms have nowhere to hide when it comes to deciding what is harmful; there will be no grey area. Ofcom will have the power to show them exact examples of what could be deemed harmful.
We recognise, however, that there is subjectivity to the work that Ofcom will have to do once the Bill passes. On priority content, it is most important that providers are clear about what is and is not acceptable; that is why we welcome the new clause, but we do of course wish that the Government applied the same logic to harm pertaining to adults online.
Kirsty Blackman
I am also happy to support new clause 1, but I have a couple of questions. It mentions that “replacement guidance” may be provided, which is important because, as we have said a number of times, things will change, and we will end up with a different online experience; that can happen quickly. I am glad that Ofcom has the ability to refresh and update the guidance.
My question is about timelines. There do not seem to be any timelines in the new clause for when the guidance is required to be published. It is key that the guidance be published before companies and organisations have to comply with it. My preference would be for it to be published as early as possible. There may well need to be more work, and updated versions of the guidance may therefore need to be published, but I would rather companies had an idea of the direction of travel, and what they must comply with, as soon as possible, knowing that it might be tweaked. That would be better than waiting until the guidance was absolutely perfect and definitely the final version, but releasing it just before people had to start complying with it. I would like an assurance that Ofcom will make publishing the guidance a priority, so that there is enough time to ensure compliance. We want the Bill to work; it will not work if people do not know what they have to comply with. Assurance on that would be helpful.
Paul Scully
I absolutely give that assurance to the hon. Lady; that is important. We all want the measures to be implemented, and the guidance to be out there, as soon as possible. Just now I talked about the platforms bringing in measures as soon as possible, without waiting for the implementation period. They can do that far better if they have the guidance. We are already working with Ofcom to ensure that the implementation period is as short as possible, and we will continue to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Restricting users’ access to content
“(1) This section applies for the purposes of this Part.
(2) References to restricting users’ access to content, and related references, include any case where a provider takes or uses a measure which has the effect that—
(a) a user is unable to access content without taking a prior step (whether or not taking that step might result in access being denied), or
(b) content is temporarily hidden from a user.
(3) But such references do not include any case where—
(a) the effect mentioned in subsection (2) results from the use or application by a user of features, functionalities or settings which a provider includes in a service in compliance with the duty set out in section 14(2) (user empowerment), or
(b) access to content is controlled by another user, rather than the provider.
(4) See also section 203(5).”—(Paul Scully.)
This new clause deals with the meaning of references to restricting users’ access to content, in particular by excluding restrictions resulting from the use of user empowerment tools as described in clause 14.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Duty not to act against users except in accordance with terms of service
“(1) A provider of a Category 1 service must operate the service using proportionate systems and processes designed to ensure that the provider does not—
(a) take down regulated user-generated content from the service,
(b) restrict users’ access to regulated user-generated content, or
(c) suspend or ban users from using the service,
except in accordance with the terms of service.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) is to be read as preventing a provider from taking down content from a service or restricting users’ access to it, or suspending or banning a user, if such an action is taken—
(a) to comply with the duties set out in—
(i) section 9(2) or (3) (protecting individuals from illegal content), or
(ii) section 11(2) or (3) (protecting children from content that is harmful to children), or
(b) to avoid criminal or civil liability on the part of the provider that might reasonably be expected to arise if such an action were not taken.
(3) In addition, nothing in subsection (1) is to be read as preventing a provider from—
(a) taking down content from a service or restricting users’ access to it on the basis that a user has committed an offence in generating, uploading or sharing it on the service, or
(b) suspending or banning a user on the basis that—
(i) the user has committed an offence in generating, uploading or sharing content on the service, or
(ii) the user is responsible for, or has facilitated, the presence or attempted placement of a fraudulent advertisement on the service.
(4) The duty set out in subsection (1) does not apply in relation to—
(a) consumer content (see section (Interpretation of this Chapter));
(b) terms of service which deal with the treatment of consumer content.
(5) If a person is the provider of more than one Category 1 service, the duty set out in subsection (1) applies in relation to each such service.
(6) The duty set out in subsection (1) extends only to the design, operation and use of a service in the United Kingdom, and references in this section to users are to United Kingdom users of a service.
(7) In this section—
‘criminal or civil liability’ includes such a liability under the law of a country outside the United Kingdom;
‘fraudulent advertisement’ has the meaning given by section 35;
‘offence’ includes an offence under the law of a country outside the United Kingdom.
(8) See also section 16 (duties to protect news publisher content).”—(Paul Scully.)
This new clause imposes a duty on providers of Category 1 services to ensure that they do not take down content or restrict users’ access to it, or suspend or ban users, except in accordance with the terms of service.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Further duties about terms of service
All services
“(1) A provider of a regulated user-to-user service must include clear and accessible provisions in the terms of service informing users about their right to bring a claim for breach of contract if—
(a) regulated user-generated content which they generate, upload or share is taken down, or access to it is restricted, in breach of the terms of service, or
(b) they are suspended or banned from using the service in breach of the terms of service.
Category 1 services
(2) The duties set out in subsections (3) to (7) apply in relation to a Category 1 service, and references in subsections (3) to (9) to ‘provider’ and ‘service’ are to be read accordingly.
(3) A provider must operate a service using proportionate systems and processes designed to ensure that—
(a) if the terms of service state that the provider will take down a particular kind of regulated user-generated content from the service, the provider does take down such content;
(b) if the terms of service state that the provider will restrict users’ access to a particular kind of regulated user-generated content in a specified way, the provider does restrict users’ access to such content in that way;
(c) if the terms of service state cases in which the provider will suspend or ban a user from using the service, the provider does suspend or ban the user in those cases.
(4) A provider must ensure that—
(a) terms of service which make provision about the provider taking down regulated user-generated content from the service or restricting users’ access to such content, or suspending or banning a user from using the service, are—
(i) clear and accessible, and
(ii) written in sufficient detail to enable users to be reasonably certain whether the provider would be justified in taking the specified action in a particular case, and
(b) those terms of service are applied consistently.
(5) A provider must operate a service using systems and processes that allow users and affected persons to easily report—
(a) content which they consider to be relevant content (see section (Interpretation of this Chapter));
(b) a user who they consider should be suspended or banned from using the service in accordance with the terms of service.
(6) A provider must operate a complaints procedure in relation to a service that—
(a) allows for complaints of a kind mentioned in subsection (8) to be made,
(b) provides for appropriate action to be taken by the provider of the service in response to complaints of those kinds, and
(c) is easy to access, easy to use (including by children) and transparent.
(7) A provider must include in the terms of service provisions which are easily accessible (including to children) specifying the policies and processes that govern the handling and resolution of complaints of a kind mentioned in subsection (8).
(8) The kinds of complaints referred to in subsections (6) and (7) are—
(a) complaints by users and affected persons about content present on a service which they consider to be relevant content;
(b) complaints by users and affected persons if they consider that the provider is not complying with a duty set out in any of subsections (1) or (3) to (5);
(c) complaints by a user who has generated, uploaded or shared content on a service if that content is taken down, or access to it is restricted, on the basis that it is relevant content;
(d) complaints by users who have been suspended or banned from using a service.
(9) The duties set out in subsections (3) and (4) do not apply in relation to terms of service which—
(a) make provision of the kind mentioned in section 9(5) (protecting individuals from illegal content) or 11(5) (protecting children from content that is harmful to children), or
(b) deal with the treatment of consumer content.
Further provision
(10) If a person is the provider of more than one regulated user-to-user service or Category 1 service, the duties set out in this section apply in relation to each such service.
(11) The duties set out in this section extend only to the design, operation and use of a service in the United Kingdom, and references to users are to United Kingdom users of a service.
(12) See also section 16 (duties to protect news publisher content).”—(Paul Scully.)
Subsections (3) to (8) of this new clause impose new duties on providers of Category 1 services in relation to terms of service that allow a provider to take down content or restrict users’ access to it, or to suspend or ban users. Such terms of service must be clear and applied consistently. Subsection (1) of the clause contains a duty which, in part, was previously in clause 20 of the Bill.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 5
OFCOM’s guidance about duties set out in sections (Duty not to act against users except in accordance with terms of service) and (Further duties about terms of service)
“(1) OFCOM must produce guidance for providers of Category 1 services to assist them in complying with their duties set out in sections (Duty not to act against users except in accordance with terms of service) and (Further duties about terms of service)(3) to (7).
(2) OFCOM must publish the guidance (and any revised or replacement guidance).”—(Paul Scully.)
This new clause requires OFCOM to give guidance to providers about complying with the duties imposed by NC3 and NC4.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 6
Interpretation of this Chapter
“(1) This section applies for the purposes of this Chapter.
(2) “Regulated user-generated content” has the same meaning as in Part 3 (see section 50), and references to such content are to content that is regulated user-generated content in relation to the service in question.
(3) “Consumer content” means—
(a) regulated user-generated content that constitutes, or is directly connected with content that constitutes, an offer to sell goods or to supply services,
(b) regulated user-generated content that amounts to an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1277) (construed in accordance with section 53: see subsections (3), (11) and (12) of that section), or
(c) any other regulated user-generated content in relation to which an enforcement authority has functions under those Regulations (see regulation 19 of those Regulations).
(4) References to restricting users’ access to content, and related references, are to be construed in accordance with sections (Restricting users’ access to content) and 203(5).
(5) Content of a particular kind is “relevant content” if—
(a) a term of service, other than a term of service mentioned in section (Further duties about terms of service)(9), states that a provider may or will take down content of that kind from the service or restrict users’ access to content of that kind, and
(b) it is regulated user-generated content.
References to relevant content are to content that is relevant content in relation to the service in question.
(6) “Affected person” means a person, other than a user of the service in question, who is in the United Kingdom and who is—
(a) the subject of the content,
(b) a member of a class or group of people with a certain characteristic targeted by the content,
(c) a parent of, or other adult with responsibility for, a child who is a user of the service or is the subject of the content, or
(d) an adult providing assistance in using the service to another adult who requires such assistance, where that other adult is a user of the service or is the subject of the content.
(7) In determining what is proportionate for the purposes of sections (Duty not to act against users except in accordance with terms of service) and (Further duties about terms of service), the size and capacity of the provider of a service is, in particular, relevant.
(8) For the meaning of “Category 1 service”, see section 83 (register of categories of services).”—(Paul Scully.)
This new clause gives the meaning of terms used in NC3 and NC4.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 7
List of emerging Category 1 services
“(1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the first regulations under paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 11 come into force (regulations specifying Category 1 threshold conditions), OFCOM must comply with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) OFCOM must assess each regulated user-to-user service which they consider is likely to meet each of the following conditions, to determine whether the service does, or does not, meet them—
(a) the first condition is that the number of United Kingdom users of the user-to-user part of the service is at least 75% of the figure specified in any of the Category 1 threshold conditions relating to number of users (calculating the number of users in accordance with the threshold condition in question);
(b) the second condition is that—
(i) at least one of the Category 1 threshold conditions relating to functionalities of the user-to-user part of the service is met, or
(ii) if the regulations under paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 11 specify that a Category 1 threshold condition relating to a functionality of the user-to-user part of the service must be met in combination with a Category 1 threshold condition relating to another characteristic of that part of the service or a factor relating to that part of the service (see paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 11), at least one of those combinations of conditions is met.
(3) OFCOM must prepare a list of regulated user-to-user services which meet the conditions in subsection (2).
(4) The list must contain the following details about a service included in it—
(a) the name of the service,
(b) a description of the service,
(c) the name of the provider of the service, and
(d) a description of the Category 1 threshold conditions by reference to which the conditions in subsection (2) are met.
(5) OFCOM must take appropriate steps to keep the list up to date, including by carrying out further assessments of regulated user-to-user services.
(6) OFCOM must publish the list when it is first prepared and each time it is revised.
(7) When assessing whether a service does, or does not, meet the conditions in subsection (2), OFCOM must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to obtain or generate information or evidence for the purposes of the assessment.
(8) An assessment for the purposes of this section may be included in an assessment under section 83 or 84 (as the case may be) or carried out separately.”—(Paul Scully.)
This new clause requires OFCOM to prepare and keep up to date a list of regulated user-to-user services that have 75% of the number of users of a Category 1 service, and at least one functionality of a Category 1 service or one required combination of a functionality and another characteristic or factor of a Category 1 service.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 8
Child user empowerment duties
“(1) This section sets out the duties to empower child users which apply in relation to Category 1 services.
(2) A duty to include in a service, to the extent that it is proportionate to do so, features which child users may use or apply if they wish to increase their control over harmful content.
(3) The features referred to in subsection (2) are those which, if used or applied by a user, result in the use by the service of systems or processes designed to—
(a) reduce the likelihood of the user encountering priority content that is harmful, or particular kinds of such content, by means of the service, or
(b) alert the user to the harmful nature of priority content that is harmful that the user may encounter by means of the service.
(4) A duty to ensure that all features included in a service in compliance with the duty set out in subsection (2) are made available to all child users.
(5) A duty to include clear and accessible provisions in the terms of service specifying which features are offered in compliance with the duty set out in subsection (2), and how users may take advantage of them.
(6) A duty to include in a service features which child users may use or apply if they wish to filter out non-verified users.
(7) The features referred to in subsection (6) are those which, if used or applied by a user, result in the use by the service of systems or processes designed to—
(a) prevent non-verified users from interacting with content which that user generates, uploads or shares on the service, and
(b) reduce the likelihood of that user encountering content which non-verified users generate, upload or share on the service.
(8) A duty to include in a service features which child users may use or apply if they wish to only encounter content by users they have approved.
(9) A duty to include in a service features which child users may use or apply if they wish to filter out private messages from—
(a) non-verified users, or
(b) adult users, or
(c) any user other than those on a list approved by the child user.
(10) In determining what is proportionate for the purposes of subsection (2), the following factors, in particular, are relevant—
(a) all the findings of the most recent child risk assessment (including as to levels of risk and as to nature, and severity, of potential harm), and
(b) the size and capacity of the provider of a service.
(11) In this section “non-verified user” means a user who has not verified their identity to the provider of a service (see section 58(1)).
(12) In this section references to features include references to functionalities and settings.”—(Kirsty Blackman.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
That was some stretch of procedure, Dame Angela, but we got there in the end. This new clause is about child user empowerment duties. I am really pleased that the Government have user empowerment duties in the Bill—they are a good thing—but I am confused as to why they apply only to adult users, and why children do not deserve the same empowerment rights over what they access online.
In writing the new clause, I pretty much copied clause 14, before there were any amendments to it, and added a couple of extra bits: subsections (8) and (9). In subsection (8), I have included:
“A duty to include in a service features which child users may use or apply if they wish to only encounter content by users they have approved.”
That would go a step further than the verification process and allow users to approve only people who are in their class at school, people with whom they are friends, or even certain people in their class at school, and to not have others on that list. I know that young people playing Fortnite—I have mentioned Fortnite a lot because people play it a lot—or Roblox are contacted by users whom they do not know, and there is no ability for young people to switch off some of the features while still being able to contact their friends. Users can either have no contact from anyone, or they can have a free-for-all. That is not the case for all platforms, but a chunk of them do not let users speak only to people on their friends list, or receive messages only from people on the list.
My proposed subsection (8) would ensure that children could have a “white list” of people who they believe are acceptable, and who they want to be contacted by, and could leave others off the list. That would help tackle not just online child exploitation, but the significant online bullying that teachers and children report. Children have spoken of the harms they experience as a result of people bullying them and causing trouble online; the perpetrators are mainly other children. Children would be able to remove such people from the list and so would not receive any content, messages or comments from those who make their lives more negative.
Subsection (9) is related to subsection (8); it would require a service to include
“features which child users may use or apply if they wish to filter out private messages from—
(a) non-verified users, or
(b) adult users, or
(c) any user other than those on a list approved by the child user.”
Adults looking to exploit children will use private messaging on platforms such as Instagram. Instagram has to know how old its users are, so anybody who is signed up to it will have had to provide it with their date of birth. It is completely reasonable for a child to say, “I want to filter out everything from an adult.” When we talk about children online, we are talking about anybody from zero to 18, which is a very wide age range. Some of those people will be working and paying bills, but will not have access to the empowerment features that adults have access to, because they have not yet reached that magical threshold. Some services may decide to give children access to user empowerment tools, but there is no requirement to. The only requirement in the Bill on user empowerment tools is for adults. That is not fair.
Children should have more control over the online environment. We know how many children feel sad as a result of their interactions online, and how many encounter content online that they wish they had never seen and cannot unsee. We should give them more power over that, and more power to say, “No, I don’t want to see that. I don’t want people I don’t know contacting me. I don’t want to get unsolicited messaged. I don’t want somebody messaging me, pretending that they are my friend or that they go to another school, when they are in fact an adult, and I won’t realise until it is far too late.”
The Bill applies to people of all ages. All of us make pretty crappy decisions sometimes. That includes teenagers, but they also make great decisions. If there was a requirement for them to have these tools, they could choose to make their online experience better. I do not think this was an intentional oversight, or that the Government set out to disadvantage children when they wrote the adult user empowerment clauses. I think they thought that it would be really good to have those clauses in the Bill, in order to give users a measure of autonomy over their time and interactions online. However, they have failed to include the same thing for children. It is a gap.
I appreciate that there are child safety duties, and that there is a much higher bar for platforms that have child users, but children are allowed a level of autonomy; look at the UN convention on the rights of the child. We give children choices and flexibilities; we do not force them to do every single thing they do, all day every day. We recognise that children should be empowered to make decisions where they can.
I know the Government will not accept the provision—I am not an idiot. I have never moved a new clause in Committee that has been accepted, and I am pretty sure that it will not happen today. However, if the Government were to say that they would consider, or even look at the possibility of, adding child user empowerment duties to the Bill, the internet would be a more pleasant place for children. They are going to use it anyway; let us try to improve their online experience even more than the Bill does already.
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North has outlined the case for the new clause eloquently and powerfully. She may not press it to a Division, if the Minister can give her assurances, but if she did, she would have the wholehearted support of the Opposition.
We see new clause 8 as complementing the child safety duties in the legislation. We fully welcome provisions that provide children with greater power and autonomy in choosing to avoid exposure to certain types of content. We have concerns about how the provisions would work in practice, but that issue has more to do with the Government’s triple-shield protections than the new clause.
The Opposition support new clause 8 because it aims to provide further protections, in addition to the child safety duties, to fully protect children from harmful content and to empower them. It would empower and enable them to filter out private messages from adults or non-verified users. We also welcome the measures in the new clause that require platforms and service providers to design accessible terms of service. That is absolutely vital to best protect children online, which is why we are all here, and what the legislation was designed for.
Paul Scully
The aim of the user empowerment duty is to give adults more control over certain categories of legal content that some users will welcome greater choice over. Those duties also give adult users greater control over who they interact with online, but these provisions are not appropriate for children. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North acknowledged, there are already separate duties on services likely to be accessed by children, in scope of part 3, to undertake comprehensive risk assessments and to comply with safety duties to protect children from harm. That includes requirements to assess how many specific functionalities may facilitate the spread of harmful content, as outlined in clause 10(6)(e), and to protect children from harmful content, including content that has been designated as priority harmful content, by putting in place age-appropriate protections.
As such, children will not need to be provided with tools to control any harmful content they see, as the platform will need to put in place age-appropriate protections. We do not want to give children an option to choose to see content that is harmful to them. The Bill also outlines in clause 11(4)(f) that, where it is proportionate to do so, service providers will be required to take measures in certain areas to meet the child-safety duties. That includes functionalities allowing for control over content that is encountered. It would not be appropriate to require providers to offer children the option to verify their identity, due to the safeguarding and data protection risks that that would pose. Although we expect companies to use technologies such as age assurance to protect children on their service, they would only be used to establish age, not identity.
The new clause would create provisions to enable children to filter out private messages from adults and users who are not on an approved list, but the Bill already contains provisions that address the risks of adults contacting children. There are also requirements on service providers to consider how their service could be used for grooming or child sexual exploitation and abuse, and to apply proportionate measures to mitigate those risks. The service providers already have to assess and mitigate the risks. They have to provide the risk assessment, and within it they could choose to mitigate risk by requiring services to prevent unknown users from contacting children.
For the reasons I have set out, the Bill already provides strong protections for children on services that they are likely to access. I am therefore not able to accept the new clause, and I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will withdraw it.
Kirsty Blackman
That was one of the more disappointing responses from the Minister, I am afraid. I would appreciate it if he could write to me to explain which part of the Bill provides protection to children from private messaging. I would be interested to have another look at that, so it would be helpful if he could provide details.
We do not want children to choose to see unsafe stuff, but the Bill is not strong enough on stuff like private messaging or the ability of unsolicited users to contact children, because it relies on the providers noticing that in their risk assessment, and putting in place mitigations after recognising the problem. It relies on the providers being willing to act to keep children safe in a way that they have not yet done.
When I am assisting my children online, and making rules about how they behave online, the thing I worry most about is unsolicited contact: what people might say to them online, and what they might hear from adults online. I am happy enough for them to talk to their friends online—I think that is grand—but I worry about what adults will say to them online, whether by private messaging through text or voice messages, or when they are playing a game online with the ability for a group of people working as a team together to broadcast their voices to the others and say whatever they want to say.
Lastly, one issue we have seen on Roblox, which is marketed as a children’s platform, is people creating games within it—people creating sex dungeons within a child’s game, or having conversations with children and asking the child to have their character take off their clothes. Those things have happened on that platform, and I am concerned that there is not enough protection in place, particularly to address that unsolicited contact. Given the disappointing response from the Minister, I am keen to push this clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. If you will allow, I want to apologise for comments made on the promotion of suicide and self-harm to adults. I believed that to be illegal, but apparently it is not. I am a free speech champion, but I do not agree with the promotion of this sort of information. I hope that the three shields will do much to stop those topics being shared.
I turn to new clause 9. I have done much while in this position to try to protect children, and that is why I followed the Bill as much as I could all the way through. Harmful content online is having tragic consequences for children. Cases such as that of Molly Russell demonstrate the incredible power of harmful material and dangerous algorithms. We know that the proliferation of online pornography is rewiring children’s brains and leading to horrendous consequences, such as child-on-child sexual abuse. This issue is of immense importance for the safety and protection of children, and for the future of our whole society.
Under the Bill, senior managers will not be personally liable for breaching the safety duties, and instead are liable only where they fail to comply with information requests or willingly seek to mislead the regulator. The Government must hardwire the safety duties to deliver a culture of compliance in regulated firms. The Bill must be strengthened to actively promote cultural change in companies and embed compliance with online safety regulations at board level.
We need a robust corporate and senior management liability scheme that imposes personal liability on directors whose actions consistently and significantly put children at risk. The Bill must learn lessons from other regulated sectors, principally financial services, where regulation imposes specific duties on the directors and senior managers of financial institutions, and those responsible individuals face regulatory enforcement if they act in breach of such duties.
The Joint Committee on the draft Online Safety Bill, which conducted pre-legislative scrutiny, recommended that a senior manager at or reporting to board level
“should be designated the ‘Safety Controller’ and made liable for a new offence: the failure to comply with their obligations as regulated service providers when there is clear evidence of repeated and systemic failings that result in a significant risk of serious harm to users.”
Some 82% of UK adults would support the appointment of a senior manager to be held liable for children’s safety on social media sites, and I believe that the measure is also backed by the NSPCC.
There is no direct relationship in the Bill between senior management liability and the discharge by a platform of its safety duties. The Government have repeatedly argued against the designation of a specific individual as a safety controller for some understandable reasons: an offence could be committed by the company without the knowledge of the named individual, and the arrangement would allow many senior managers and directors to face no consequences. However, new clause 9 would take a different approach by deeming any senior employee or manager at the company to be a director for the purposes of the Bill
The concept of consent or connivance is already used in other Acts of Parliament, such as the Theft Act 1968 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. In other words, if a tech platform is found to be in breach of the Online Safety Bill—once it has become an Act—with regard to its duties to children, and it can be proven that this breach occurred with the knowledge or consent of a senior person, that person could be held criminally liable for the breach.
I have been a director in the construction industry for many years. There is a phrase in the industry that the company can pay the fine, but it cannot do the time. I genuinely believe that holding directors criminally liable will ensure that the Bill, which is good legislation, will really be taken seriously. I hope the Minister will agree to meet me to discuss this further.
Damian Collins
I want to briefly speak on this amendment, particularly as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley referenced the report by the Joint Committee, which I chaired. As he said, the Joint Committee considered the question of systematic abuse. A similar provision exists in the data protection legislation, whereby any company that is consistently in breach could be considered to have failed in its duties under the legislation and there could be criminal liability. The Joint Committee considered whether that should also apply with the Online Safety Bill.
As the Bill has gone through its processes, the Government have brought forward the commencement of criminal liability for information offences, whereby if a company refuses to respond to requests for information or data from the regulator, that would be a breach of their duties; it would invoke criminal liability for a named individual. However, I think the question of a failure to meet the safety duty set out in the Bill really needs to be framed along the lines of being a systematic and persistent breach, as the Joint Committee recommended. If, for example, a company was prepared to ignore requests from Ofcom, use lawyers to evade liability for as long as possible and consistently pay fines for serious breaches without ever taking responsibility for them, what would we do then? Would there be some liability at that point?
The amendment drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is based on other existing legislation, and on there being knowledge—with “consent or connivance”. We can see how that would apply in cases such as the diesel emissions concerns raised at Volkswagen, where there was criminal liability, or maybe the LIBOR bank rate rigging and the serious failures there. In those cases, what was discovered was senior management’s knowledge and connivance; they were part of a process that they knew was illegal.
With the amendment as drafted, the question we would have is: could it apply for any failure? Where management could say, “We have created a system to resolve this system that hasn’t worked on this occasion”, would that trigger it? Or is it something broader and more systematic? These failures will be more about the failure to design a regime that takes into account the required stated duties, rather than a particular individual act, such as the rigging of the LIBOR rates or giving false public information on diesel emissions, which could only be made at a corporate level.
When I chaired the Joint Committee, we raised the question, “What about systematic failure, as we have that as an offence in data protection legislation?” I still think that would be an interesting question to consider when the Bill goes to another place. However, I have concerns that the current drafting would not fit quite as well in the online safety regime as it does in other industries. It would really need to reflect consistent, persistent failures on behalf of a company that go beyond the criminal liabilities that already exist in the Bill around information offences.
The Chair
Just to be clear, it is new clause 9 that we are reading a Second time, not an amendment.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
I rise to recognise the spirit and principle behind new clause 9, while, of course, listening carefully to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. He is right to raise those concerns, but my question is: is there an industry-specific way in which the same responsibility and liability could be delivered?
I recognise too that the Bill is hugely important. It is a good Bill that has child protection at its heart. It also contains far more significant financial penalties than we have previously seen—as I understand it, 10% of qualifying revenue up to £18 million. This will drive some change, but it comes against the backdrop of multi-billion-pound technology companies.
I would be interested to understand whether a double lock around the board-level responsibility might further protect children from some of the harrowing and harmful content we see online. What we need is nothing short of transformation and significant culture change. Even today, The Guardian published an article about TikTok and a study by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, which found that teenagers who demonstrated an interest in self-harm and eating disorders were having algorithms pushing that content on to them within minutes. That is most troubling.
We need significant, serious and sustained culture change. There is precedent in other sectors, as has been mentioned, and there was a previous recommendation, so clearly there is merit in this. My understanding is that there is strong public support, because the public recognise that this new responsibility cannot be strengthened by anything other than liability. If there is board-level liability, that will drive priorities and resources, which will broker the kind of change we are looking for. I look forward to what the Minister might share today, as this has been a good opportunity to bring these issues into further consideration, and they might then be carried over into subsequent stages of this excellent Bill.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I would like to build on the excellent comments from my colleagues and to speak about child sexual abuse material. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) and for Stone for tabling the amendment. I am very interested in how we can use the excellent provisions in the Bill to keep children safe from child sexual abuse material online. I am sure the Committee is aware of the devastating impact of such material.
Sexual abuse imagery—of girls in particular—is increasingly prevalent. We know that 97% of this material in 2021 showed female children. The Internet Watch Foundation took down a record-breaking 252,000 URLs that had images of children being raped, and seven in 10 of those images were of children aged 11 to 13. Unfortunately, the National Crime Agency estimates that between 550,000 and 850,000 people in the UK are searching for such material on the internet. They are actively looking for it, and at the moment they are able to find it.
My concern is with how we use what is in the Bill already to instil a top-down culture in companies, because this is about culture change in the boardroom, so that safety is considered with every decision. I have read the proceedings from previous sittings, and I recognise that the Government and Ministers have said that we have sufficient provisions to protect children, but I think there is a little bit of a grey area with tech companies.
I want to mention Apple and the update it was planning for quite a few years. There was an update that would have automatically scanned for child sex abuse material. Apple withdrew it following a backlash from encryption and privacy experts, who claimed it would undermine the privacy and security of iCloud users and make people less safe on the internet. Having previously said that it would pause it to improve it, Apple now says that it has stopped it altogether and that it is vastly expanding its end-to-end encryption, even though law enforcement agencies around the world, including our own UK law enforcement agencies, have expressed serious concerns because it makes investigations and prosecution more challenging. All of us are not technical experts. I do not believe that we are in a position to judge how legitimate it is for Apple to have this pause. What we do know is that while there is this pause, the risks for children are still there, proliferating online.
We understand completely that countering this material involves a complicated balance and that the tech giants need to walk a fine line between keeping users safe and keeping their data safe. But the question is this: if Apple and others continue to delay or backtrack, will merely failing to comply with an information request, which is what is in the Bill now, be enough to protect children from harm? Could they delay indefinitely and still be compliant with the Bill? That is what I am keen to hear from the Minister. I would be grateful if he could set out why he thinks that individuals who have the power to prevent the harmful content that has torn apart the lives of so many young people and their families should not face criminal consequences if they fail to do so. Can he reassure us as to how he thinks that the Bill can protect so many children—it is far too many children—from this material online?
Alex Davies-Jones
Labour supports new clause 9, as liability is an issue that we have repeatedly raised throughout the passage of the Bill—most recently, on Report. As colleagues will be aware, the new clause would introduce criminal liabilities for directors who failed to comply with their duties. This would be an appropriate first step in ensuring a direct relationship between senior management of platforms and companies, and their responsibilities to protect children from significant harm. As we have heard, this measure would drive a more effective culture of awareness and accountability in relation to online safety at the top of and within the entire regulated firm. It would go some way towards ensuring that online safety was at the heart of the governance structures internally. The Bill must go further to actively promote cultural change and put online safety at the forefront of business models; it must ensure that these people are aware that it is about keeping people safe and that that must be at the forefront, over any profit. A robust corporate and senior management liability scheme is needed, and it needs to be one that imposes personal liability on directors when they put children at risk.
The Minister knows as well as I do that the benefits of doing so would be strong. We have only to turn to the coroner’s comments in the tragic case of Molly Russell’s death—which I know we are all mindful of as we debate this Bill—to fully understand the damaging impact of viewing harmful content online. I therefore urge the Minister to accept new clause 9, which we wholeheartedly support.
Paul Scully
The Government recognise that the intent behind the new clause is to create new criminal offences of non-compliance with selected duties. It would establish a framework for personal criminal offences punishable through fines or imprisonment. It would mean that providers committed a criminal offence if they did not comply with certain duties.
We all want this Bill to be effective. We want it to be on the statute book. It is a question of getting that fine balance right, so that we can properly hold companies to account for the safety of their users. The existing approach to enforcement and senior manager liability strikes the right balance between robust enforcement and deterrent, and ensuring that the UK remains an attractive place to do business. We are confident that the Bill as a whole will bring about the change necessary to ensure that users, especially younger users, are kept safe online.
This new clause tries to criminalise not complying with the Bill’s duties. Exactly what activity would be criminalised is not obvious from the new clause, so it could be difficult for individuals to foresee exactly what type of conduct would constitute an offence. That could lead to unintended consequences, with tech executives driving an over-zealous approach to content take-down for fear of imprisonment, and potentially removing large volumes of innocuous content and so affecting the ability for open debate to take place.
Kirsty Blackman
Does the Minister not think that the freedom of speech stuff and the requirement to stick to terms of service that he has put in as safeguards for that are strong enough, then?
Paul Scully
I come back to this point: I think that if people were threatened with personal legal liability, that would stifle innovation and make them over-cautious in their approach. That would remove the balance, disturb the balance, that we have tried to achieve in this iteration of the Bill. Trying to keep internet users, particularly children, safe has to be achieved alongside free speech and not at its expense.
Further, the threat of criminal prosecution for failing to comply with numerous duties also runs a real risk of damaging the attractiveness of the UK as a place to start up and grow a digital business. I want internet users in the future to be able to access all the benefits of the internet safely, but we cannot achieve that if businesses avoid the UK because our enforcement regime is so far out of kilter with international comparators. Instead, the most effective way to ensure that services act to protect people online is through the existing framework and the civil enforcement options that are already provided for in the Bill, overseen by an expert regulator.
Nick Fletcher
I appreciate the Minister’s comments, but from what my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe, for Eastbourne, and for Redditch said this morning about TikTok—these sorts of images get to children within two and a half minutes—it seems that there is a cultural issue, which the hon. Member for Pontypridd mentioned. Including new clause 9 in the Bill would really ram home the message that we are taking this seriously, that the culture needs to change, and that we need to do all that we can. I hope that the Minister will speak to his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to see what, if anything, can be done.
Paul Scully
I forgot to respond to my hon. Friend’s question about whether I would meet him. I will happily meet him.
Nick Fletcher
I appreciate that. We will come back to this issue on Report, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
The Chair
It is usual at this juncture for there to be a few thanks and niceties, if people wish to give them.
Paul Scully
I apologise, Dame Angela; I did not realise that I had that formal role, but you are absolutely right.
Paul Scully
Dame Angela, you know that I love niceties. It is Christmas—the festive season! It is a little bit warmer today because we changed room, but we remember the coldness; it reminds us that it is Christmas.
I thank you, Dame Angela, and thank all the Clerks in the House for bringing this unusual recommittal to us all, and schooling us in the recommittal process. I thank Members from all parts of the House for the constructive way in which the Bill has been debated over the two days of recommittal. I also thank the Doorkeepers and my team, many of whom are on the Benches here or in the Public Gallery. They are watching and WhatsApping—ironically, using end-to-end encryption.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank you, too, Dame Angela. I echo the Minister’s sentiments, and thank all the Clerks, the Doorkeepers, the team, and all the stakeholders who have massively contributed, with very short turnarounds, to the scrutiny of this legislation. I have so appreciated all that assistance and expertise, which has helped me, as shadow Minister, to compile our comments on the Bill following the Government’s recommittal of it to Committee, which is an unusual step. Huge thanks to my colleagues who joined us today and in previous sittings, and to colleagues from across the House, and particularly from the SNP, a number of whose amendments we have supported. We look forward to scrutinising the Bill further when it comes back to the House in the new year.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank you, Dame Angela, as well as Sir Roger for chairing our debates. Recommittal has been a very odd and unusual process; it has been a bit like groundhog day, discussing things we have discussed previously. I very much appreciate the hard work of departmental and Ofcom staff that went into making this happen, as well as the work of the Clerks, the Doorkeepers, and the team who ensured that we have a room that is not freezing—that has been really helpful.
I thank colleagues from across the House, particularly the Labour Front-Bench spokespeople, who have been incredibly helpful in supporting our amendments. This has been a pretty good-tempered Committee and we have all got on fairly well, even though we have disagreed on a significant number of issues. I am sure we will have those arguments again on Report.
The Chair
There being no more obvious niceties, I add my thanks to everybody. I wish everybody season’s greetings and a happy Christmas.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
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
Eye Health
(2 years 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
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered a blueprint for eye health in England and the devolved nations.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this debate. The hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) was going to be here, but she has a funeral to attend. As she is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on eye health and visual impairment, her contribution would be significant. The funeral was at half-past twelve, so it is probably ending about now, and she said she would try to get here. Her contribution to this debate would be of significance to all of us here, particularly the Minister.
I also thank the Eyes Have It partnership, which includes the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, the Macular Society, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the Association of Optometrists, Fight for Sight and Roche, for its support. The name of the group is my favourite of all the names. The work that the group does is incredible. What could be better for a Westminster Hall debate in the House of Commons than the Eyes Have It? When the ayes have it, that means we are on the right road. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. My staff have been in touch with him, so he will have a fair idea of what we are trying to achieve.
I am also pleased to see the Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), who brings much knowledge from her own personal job to the debate. I look forward to her contribution. I also welcome the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) from the Scots Nats. We speak in all these debates, and it is hard to find a margin of difference between the two of us when it comes to our proposals—indeed, between the three of us.
I thank the Minister for his presence. I know the issues raised will be heard and acted on, which is what we want in these debates—a responsive Minster with a good ear to listen and to grasp the issues, which I know he does, and build on what we say. I am ever mindful that health is a devolved matter, so my contribution to a blueprint for eye health in England and the devolved nations will be from a Northern Ireland perspective. I know the Minister will respond specifically to what we have here on the mainland. The spokesperson for the Scots Nats will add her knowledge from Scotland. I like to hear the contributions from our Scottish colleagues because they have a health system and an eye care system that might be the envy of many of us.
Today’s debate seeks to build on the previous debate, held in January 2022, on eye health and macular disease. It was a Tuesday morning debate, so probably more amenable to those who wanted to attend. Sometimes on a Thursday afternoon, when there are difficulties with trains and suchlike, the people who could be here are not. Since the debate in January 2022, some good things have happened. NHS England has appointed its first national clinical director for eye care. At the same time, England has established integrated care systems, which empower local areas to increasingly shape their healthcare provision. What has been done therefore has a local, community impact.
At present, every nation of the United Kingdom except England has some form of eye care plan, whether it is self-contained or part of a wider strategy. I am sure that the Minister will give us his thoughts on that. However, the content and focus of the plans vary significantly, as I am sure we will hear from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Tooting. Additionally, policy progress has often been fragmented, and what planning guidance there is for services in England does not contain longer-term ambitions or measures for improvement. I hope that the debate will perhaps outline another, stronger direction. If we can do that, the debate will have highlighted what we want it to highlight.
A plan for England would empower the NCD by providing a framework that enables effective oversight of ICSs without undermining local autonomy. It would create a shared long-term vision that encompasses primary, secondary and community care, and that future-proofs services. If we can achieve that, we will have done well. At the same time, it could provide a basis for increased alignment between nations, and I hope that the Minister will give us some pointers on how to address this issue better together. The fact that I always make this point does not weaken it: we can learn how to do better from all the regions. By doing better for one—England, for example—we can improve the situation for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. If we can do that, that would be good news.
Over 2 million people in the United Kingdom are living with a condition that can cause sight loss, such as glaucoma, cataracts, macular disease or diabetic retinopathy. Some 340,000 people in the United Kingdom are registered as blind or partially sighted, and 50% of UK sight loss is thought to be preventable. I say this honestly and with deep respect to everyone here, including the Minister: if we can prevent sight loss by doing early checks in opticians and GPs’ surgeries, that would be good. If we cannot, we will leave people with sight loss for the rest of their lives.
I often think that, of all our senses, eyesight would be the hardest to lose. If I did not have the ability to hear, at least I would have vision, which colours everyday life as it goes by; losing eyesight becomes more and more difficult to handle. If 50% of UK sight loss is thought to be preventable, what is being done to prevent it? Members will know that sight loss affects people in many ways, but it is clear to everyone here that the impact of sight loss is profound for individuals, as well as their friends and families.
The Royal National Institute of Blind People once asked me to do a walk around Holywood with guide dogs, which I was more than glad to do. That gave me a better understanding of what it means to have sight loss. I put a black mask over my eyes; I could see no light whatsoever. I had a guide dog that I had never met, and the guide dog did not know me. That guide dog stayed at my right knee, and guided me up the Holywood street, which was full of shoppers, and I got a perspective on having sight loss. The dog took me where it wanted me. It stopped on the footpath before crossing the road. That left an indelible impression of what it means to be blind and what we must do to help. I thank Guide Dogs for all that it does. We all respond to the adverts on TV, and many of us in this debate, and outside of this House, probably contribute to the charity, so that someone else can have a dog as their companion and guide.
Choices made about the provision of eye care can change the trajectory of a person’s life. The experience of sight loss can often be similar to bereavement, inspiring feelings of denial, anger and fear. The impact of sight loss is also felt beyond individuals and their families. In England, the data is most readily available; it is always good to have the data, because it gives us the possibility of establishing a strategy and a way forward. In England, ophthalmology is the single biggest out-patient speciality, with over 7.5 million attendances at ophthalmology out-patient services in 2021.
Recent calculations show that eye conditions cost the UK economy some £25.2 billion per year, a figure expected to rise to £33.5 billion per year by 2050, and 84% of the economic costs of sight loss lie outside the health and social care system. Again, Minister, how best can we draw sight loss within the health and social care system, to ensure that the delivery of treatment for people with sight loss is achieved in a positive fashion?
A range of pressures contribute to what is now a capacity crisis in eye care. Over recent years, demand for eye care services has increased, driven by an ageing population, with people rightly concerned about losing their sight; if we can prevent that, then we will have achieved much. However, such concern can lead to unnecessary referrals, increasing pressure on services. A recent Moorfields study found that 52% of patients referred for specialist assessment did not need specialist treatment.
There are also significant workforce pressures. In 2018, the Royal College of Ophthalmologists identified a shortfall of 230 consultants and 204 staff and associate specialist ophthalmologists. That situation is predicted to get worse, so again I ask the Minister: what can be done to retain the number of staff, and indeed increase their number?
These structural factors have been combined with severe disruption to services due to the pandemic, making it harder for services to implement innovations that could mitigate growing demand. As a result, there are significant ophthalmology backlogs across the United Kingdom and indeed in Northern Ireland as well. Some patients are now waiting six months or longer to access eye care services. With great respect, I believe that situation really needs to improve. Eyesight can be saved if waiting times for appointments are shortened. Back home, I am aware of some people whose appointments were delayed and unfortunately in that short time they lost their sight.
In England, 641,000 people were waiting for specialist eye treatment as of October 2022, accounting for some 9.2% of the NHS waiting list and 1.1% of the entire population of England. In Scotland, ophthalmology accounts for 12.2% of waiting lists; in Wales, the figure is 11.9%; and in Northern Ireland it is 9.9%.
In my constituency of Strangford, the local health and social care trust is the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust. As of 30 June 2022, 49% of patients waiting for ophthalmology out-patient treatment in the South Eastern HSCT have been waiting longer than 18 weeks. We need to shorten that and I have been in touch with the Minister back home—Robin Swann, who by the way is a very responsive Minister—to see how we can cut down that waiting period of 18 weeks.
According to figures for Northern Ireland from the Office for National Statistics, almost 18,000 patients were waiting for ophthalmology services. Of those, over 9,000 ophthalmology patients—about 55%—were waiting more than 52 weeks for a first consultant-led out-patient appointment. That situation is the reason why people have lost their sight and it really has to be improved. In total, 82% were waiting over nine weeks. Again, it is very clear that something has to be done. It is not the Minister’s responsibility—I know that—but I am just putting the facts on the record in Hansard because I think that there are many issues for us to address, including back home.
Evidence suggests that the mega-clinics are making some progress on cataract surgery waiting times. My own mother is 91 and she has had one of her cataracts done. She was treated on Tuesday and she made the appointment for the second cataract. This treatment will definitely improve my mum’s vision greatly, as well as her participation in life. She may be 91, but she is still a formidable lady. She has a deep interest in all that happens in the world, including in the political things that happen here; no doubt, she will want to watch this debate as well to find out what has been said.
The figures for cataract surgery waiting times are deeply troubling, and the impact on patients’ lives, including their physical, psychological and emotional wellbeing, continues to be significant. It is my belief that the next Assembly or Executive should prioritise addressing waiting times for treatment in Northern Ireland by investing in and expanding the use of timely, targeted interventions, such as mega-clinics and community-based care and support. A greater use should be made of accessible patient communication to address waiting times and treatment delays.
Treatment delays can have a significant impact. Up to 22 people per month experience severe or permanent sight loss due to delays to follow-up care. A national plan for eye care is needed to address the capacity crisis and ensure everybody can access the care they need at the right time and in the right place. Ultimately, that would prevent avoidable sight loss, which would be a massive step forward.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have some form of eye care plan, but they vary in scope, focus and content. The Eyes Have It identified four key areas that the national plan should address. The workforce should be expanded to ensure the NHS has the skills it needs now and in the future. Ophthalmology training should be expanded, and optometrists and multi-disciplinary eye care teams should be enabled to work at the top of their licences. In other words, there should be a focus on them.
New technologies, such as digital remote monitoring and remote triage, should be used to ensure the care delivered is efficient, prioritises those with the greatest needs and fits around patients’ lives. If we can do that, we will have achieved much.
There should be research into the future of treatment to better understand sight loss, and that should be translated into innovative treatments that enable more people to keep their sight. That has to be a central goal of what we are trying to achieve. The uptake of innovative treatments will improve patient outcomes, prevent the deterioration of sight and reduce the burden of care on the families impacted. We need to address them, too.
The national plan can support systems to ensure that patients access the right care at the right time. That would reduce unnecessary referrals and, ultimately, the pressure on NHS eye care services. A national plan would also help to improve the integration of all levels of community and hospital eye services. It is important that community and hospital eye services are married as one so they can do better. That would enable new integrated care systems to deliver care that is joined up, works for patients and local communities, and supports national oversight. In other words, the strategy starts here and works its way down to communities, councils and all the other systems.
It is of course right that the nations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can develop healthcare services that meet the needs of their own populations. I understand that, but a well-designed plan for one nation can provide a valuable blueprint for others, supporting all nations to improve their eye care services and prevent more avoidable sight loss.
I am my party’s health spokesperson, which is why I am involved in all health debates and why I secured this debate, along with the hon. Member for Battersea. The cancer strategy in England provides a helpful guide for the structure of a well-built, potentially successful national plan. NHS England’s national cancer transformation board publishes an implementation plan for the strategy, and there is a commitment to a £200 million cancer transformation fund.
There are yearly progress updates from NHS England. Alongside its principles, the strategy for cancer details the current landscape in cancer care and sets out ambitions and performance metrics, rather than measuring progress. At the end, it sets out practical recommendations for transformation: improving the experiences of care, treatment and support, improving the efficiency of delivery, and driving implementation and cost savings. Costs are a part of no matter what we do nowadays, and we should make cost savings as long as there is no detriment to the service. Those will be key components of a national eye care plan that tackles the big issues while proposing specific metrics and making recommendations for policymakers.
As highlighted by Professor Kathryn Saunders, the division head of optometry in Ulster University back home, a blueprint for each nation would need to address eye health inequalities, and not just those of a geographical nature. We must ensure that there is more equitable access to eye care among the different communities and populations that are at a significantly increased risk of having a sight problem but may not be accessing NHS sight tests, such as people who are homeless, people with dementia—I make a special plea for them—and children and adults with learning disabilities.
The charity SeeAbility has highlighted the wonderful work of Professor Saunders and the issue of eye care inequality. Some people in the Gallery today are directly involved, and I am pleased to see them here. I am also very pleased that they passed information through to us. Professor Saunders has said:
“I’m sorry to say that not enough action on these inequalities is happening. I’m even sorrier to say that even a service currently offered in special schools appears under threat.”
We need to marry things up better. She continued:
“NHS England will not say what happens after 31 March 2023 to the NHS Special Schools Eye Care Service. It started last year and has reached 83 special schools so far supporting over 9000 children.”
I commend the pilot scheme promoted by the Government and the NHS. It has done much—it is a success story—but I seek assurance that the special schools eye care service will continue beyond March 2023. That evidence-based, inclusive service was celebrated globally last year on World Sight Day, and it was a first for the UK, with Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland watching closely. It was established by the NHS on the premise that children with learning disabilities are 28 times more likely to have a sight problem but struggle to access sight tests or glasses.
The evidence is compelling. Half of children in special schools have a sight problem, yet only four in 10 have ever had a sight test. What can we do to improve that? I would be pleased if the Minister gave us some indication of what could be done, ever mindful that two Departments probably need to be approached to ensure that it takes place. I am pleased that research from Ulster University has provided evidence to support the benefits of in-school eye care for this vulnerable group. We are moving towards that strategy for Northern Ireland, which is positive, demonstrating that that model of eye care has educational benefits as well as positive impacts on vision.
If the service is to be scaled back or abandoned, what will happen to the 9,000 children in a few months’ time? I do not think that we can ignore the good work that has been achieved. Surely the intention is not for them to return to overstretched hospital clinics. We must do better. If there was ever an example of the need for joined-up strategic thinking on eye care, surely this is it. I ask the Minister the question that Professor Saunders asked me to pose: will he take action to ensure that NHS England does not close the service without proper consultation? There is real good here, and it is important that we have the opportunity to see it continue.
This is a slightly different point, but it is related to eye care in England and the devolved nations. The Older Drivers Task Force sent me some information and was keen to feed into the process, so it is important that we record that. Only the UK uses the ability to read a vehicle number plate at a set distance—20 metres—to assess someone’s visual fitness to drive at their first licence application, with no further requirement for visual assessments. The UK’s reliance on the number plate test has been widely criticised as not fit for purpose. Not only is it a crude measure of visual acuity, but, according to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in 2021, many motorists are unaware of that requirement for driving.
There have been recent calls for vision checks, such as evidence of a recent sight test, to be introduced at licence application and renewal every 10 years. Those calls are in accordance with the Department for Transport’s “Road Safety Statement 2019”, which stated that consideration was being given to having a mandatory sight test at age 70 and at three-year intervals thereafter, to coincide with licence renewal. The covid pandemic has slowed things up, and we have lost two or three years of progress in the NHS and many spheres of life, but I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this issue. There is evidence of strong support from older drivers—those aged 60 and over—for compulsory eyesight testing when renewing a licence. The over-60s are entitled to free sight tests, so such a requirement would be at no cost to those drivers. If there is no cost, it seems to be a win-win, so let us do that.
The Older Drivers Task Force recommended the introduction of mandatory eyesight testing, with an optometrist or an ophthalmic or medical practitioner providing an “MOT” of a driver’s eyesight at licence renewal at the age of 70, and at subsequent renewals. Should that be implemented, the NHS contract for free eyesight tests would need to be amended so that drivers aged 70 and above could have a more detailed “MOT” sight test. That is the request of the Older Drivers Task Force, and I believe it would benefit those in that age group who drive and everyone on the road.
The covid pandemic has had a very negative effect on the visual health of the nation. In September 2020, the Eyecare Trust announced that an estimated 5 million routine eye tests had been missed. With subsequent lockdowns and restrictions, the situation has since worsened, which raises serious concerns for road safety, as the UK licensing system relies on drivers being responsible for ensuring that they meet the visual standards for driving. The pandemic has led to long waiting times for patients referred for assessment and treatment of DVLA-notifiable sight conditions. While they wait, they may continue to drive even though their condition may be deteriorating, jeopardising both their safety and that of other road users, so there is a practical reason for this request.
Delays to cataract surgery—my mum, who has been on the waiting list for three years, had her first cataract surgery some three months ago, with the second to come shortly—have been identified as a particular concern. It is difficult to quantify the crash risk of visually impaired drivers, as data is not routinely collected. However, according to the College of Optometrists, a recent analysis of contributing factors recorded in STATS19 showed an association between visual impairment and injury collisions for drivers aged 60 and over. An earlier study by the Road Safety Authority estimated that some 2,000 drivers in the UK were involved in accidents in 2013 due to poor vision, causing nearly 3,000 casualties.
The recommendations made by the Older Drivers Task Force are quite simple, but I believe that they are very practical and helpful. It calls for a change in the way that visual standards for fitness to drive are assessed and monitored for all drivers, but particularly for those aged 60 and over. It recommends that the number plate test should be replaced with a standardised measure of visual acuity plus an assessment of visual fields, contrast sensitivity and twilight vision. In other words, we should test both night and day driving; I think that is important for licence renewals. The Older Drivers Task Force also repeats its recommendation to introduce mandatory eyesight testing and to provide an “MOT” of driver eyesight at licence renewal at the age of 70, and at subsequent renewals.
I will conclude by giving a couple of examples of the importance of people visiting their optician regularly. I know of two people in my constituency who have been affected by this issue. One lady was having headaches and went to see her optician, who checked her and found a growth, which turned out to be a tumour. He sent her to the Ulster Hospital, which is just up the road from Newtownards in my constituency. Ultimately, the lady was hospitalised and had an operation. Opticians, and regular attendance, can save people’s lives.
A good friend of mine had not been feeling well for some time. He came in on a Monday to see me in the office before I came over here for work. He said, “I haven’t been well.” I looked at him and said, “You look very pale and have lost a bit of weight.” He replied, “Jim, I’ve had sore heads for almost three weeks.” He was going to see his optician that day. As a result of the eye test, the optician diagnosed a tumour or growth. My friend was told to go to the Ulster Hospital immediately and, within two days, he had an operation to remove a tumour the size of a tennis ball. It is hard to comprehend such things. I tell those two stories because they are examples of how regular check-ups with opticians save people’s lives.
In conclusion—I have said that already, but I really will conclude with this—eye care services across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are facing significant pressures, with implications for individuals, the NHS and the wider economy. Developing a national plan for eye care will help tackle the capacity crisis in eye care in England and provide a blueprint to share good practice across the United Kingdom, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I thank you, Mr Sharma, and I thank the Minister for his time. I also thank the two shadow Ministers, who will speak shortly. I have not read their speeches, but I suspect that we will all be on the same page, asking for the same thing. We look to the Minister to respond in a positive fashion.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for the nice things he said about me and congratulate him on securing this important debate. He is right: people would have been present if it had been possible, but weather, transport and other emergencies intervened.
Eye problems can affect anyone at any age. It is important that people get their eyes tested regularly. In Scotland, we feel that that should be by having a free NHS-funded eye examination. It is easy for us to neglect our eyes, because often they do not hurt when there is a problem. Having our eyes examined regularly can help to detect early signs of sight-threating conditions and other serious health conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and high blood pressure, in addition to the conditions that the hon. Member for Strangford told us about a moment ago.
In Scotland, community optometrists are the first contact point for any eye problems. They can diagnose and treat a number of conditions without the patient requiring an appointment with their GP or an ophthalmologist. An increasing number of community optometrists are registered independent prescribers and can issue patients with an NHS prescription to treat their eye problem.
The Scottish Government intend to expand further the range of eye care services delivered in the community by investing in a shared electronic patient record and in accredited practitioner training. That will include the management of stable glaucoma and treated ocular hypertension patients, and a national low vision service for visually impaired people. The Minister should probably have a look at that.
The Scottish Government also have a national ophthalmology workstream on hospital eye services, which sets out how they manage the delivery of hospital eye care services to provide timely care for patients. Patients with ophthalmic conditions are often vulnerable and must be supported by a responsive health service. Their care should primarily be safe and timely.
In Scotland, the Government are committed to improving services for sensory impaired people through their See Hear strategy. Adults and children with a sensory impairment should expect seamless provision of assessment, care and support, and the same access to employment, education, leisure, healthcare and social care as anyone else. In 2017, NHS Education for Scotland carried out an independent review of low vision service provision across Scotland.
In contrast to England and Wales, the Scottish Government provide free, universal, NHS-funded eye examinations, which is really important, especially given the cost of living. Universal access to healthcare is one of the Scottish Government’s key priorities, which is why free eye examinations for all were introduced in Scotland in 2006. Anyone, from any background, is able to access free eye care to help reduce the risk of sight loss. That includes all people in Scotland who are UK resident, refugees, asylum seekers and some eligible overseas visitors. Appointments are available every two years, and people are able to attend an optometrist for an NHS-funded examination of any eye problem that arises between times, including emergencies.
I was a beneficiary of that system. My eye started to fail and I found it very difficult to carry on my work, especially here in Westminster Hall, when I could not read the screens properly unless I was sitting very close to them. I went to my local optometrist. She checked my eyes and discovered cataracts, and immediately put me on a path for treatment, which really helped. When the same thing happened in my other eye, I was able to go back between appointments and say, “Look, I think there’s a problem. Can you help?” Again, I was put on a treatment path. I now have two artificial lenses—one in each eye, as my late father would have said. I have really benefited from that system, as have many people in Scotland.
If someone is unable to travel unaccompanied because of a physical or mental illness or disability, they can arrange to have a home visit quite easily. In fact, I walk from my house to my son’s house every week, and there are posters on railings across the roundabout that I have to go by, telling people that they can have that service. That is hugely important because, often, it is as people get older and more vulnerable—I put myself in that category some days—that they benefit from free eye care.
Those on benefits such as employment and support allowance, jobseeker’s allowance, pension credit, universal credit, working tax credit or child tax credit, and children under 16 years old, are entitled to help with the cost of glasses or contact lenses, and the repair or replacement of glasses or contact lenses, in the form of an NHS optical voucher.
In Scotland, before a child starts primary school, they will be offered a vision screening appointment as part of the See4School programme. That helps children begin school with the best possible vision and helps provide for any long-term visual problems. My daughter only discovered she had eye issues when she was learning to play a musical instrument and could not read the music from where she had to stand. If she had been screened earlier, it is possible that she would not have needed glasses for her whole life, as she does now.
In Scotland, we believe that socioeconomic inequalities drive health inequalities. That is why the Scottish Government are acting to mitigate the impact of austerity and reduce inequality. Where we have public health issues, Scottish Government public health efforts are complemented by wide-ranging cross-Government action. That is where Scotland benefits from being a small country. It is much easier to work in partnership and get cross-governmental things done.
We know that the worst health outcomes are driven to a significant extent by deprivation. That is why the Scottish Government are committed to addressing the underlying causes of health inequalities and to ending poverty; increasing access to fair employment, education and training; and improving our physical and social environments. That whole-systems approach and cross-Government action is needed to improve equity for Scotland’s people and communities. I believe that is true right across the four nations of the United Kingdom. That will be achieved by focusing efforts on the determinants of health inequalities and working more effectively in partnership. Reducing poverty and inequality sits at the heart of the SNP Scottish Government’s investment across all portfolios, and is a key driver of their development of a wellbeing economy that will have the needs of each individual at its core. The wellbeing economy is now becoming a recognised way of improving not just health, but everything around health and the lives of a nation’s people.
We believe that prescription charges are a tax on ill health and a barrier to better health for many. Charging for prescriptions would mean that many people with chronic conditions, or even those receiving treatment for cancer, could be liable. The Scottish Government continue to demonstrate their commitment to the provision of free healthcare advice and treatment when needed, with the introduction of the NHS Pharmacy First service, which is available in all community pharmacies to everyone registered with a GP or ordinarily resident in Scotland.
The Scottish Government are keen to support people to make healthier lifestyle choices that help take care of their eyes. I do not think many people realise that giving up smoking helps, because smokers are much more likely to develop age-related macular degeneration— the most common cause of sight loss in the UK—and cataracts than non-smokers. Given that smoking is more prevalent in the most deprived communities, the Scottish Government have set specific targets for cessation services focused on those communities. They provide £9.1 million a year to health boards to fund smoking cessation services targeted at achieving successful 12-week quits for 1.5% of the adult population in the most deprived areas. Through all of that, the Scottish Government will ensure a “done by communities, for communities” approach, making sure that lived experience is central to their work.
The Scottish Government are also keen that people drink within the recommended limits, because heavy alcohol consumption may increase the risk of developing early age-related macular degeneration. The alcohol framework sets out the priorities for preventing alcohol-related harm. We consulted on potential restrictions on alcohol advertising and promotion in 2022 to protect children and young people. The Scottish Government have twice run their “count 14” campaign work to raise awareness of the UK chief medical officer’s lower-risk drinking guidelines of 14 units per week. It was run for four weeks in March 2019 and over six weeks in January to March 2020. They are exploring the evidence around managed alcohol programmes and are delighted to be able to contribute to the running of the model being piloted in Glasgow by Simon Community Scotland and its evaluation. Of course, making alcohol more expensive in Scotland, especially the kinds of drinks that young people in particular used to drink, has also helped. In the end, it will help their eye health as well.
Will the Minister look at what we are doing in Scotland? I am sure he has a very good idea. It is really important. Will he tell us what he hopes will happen in England?
In conclusion, it is really important that there is a blueprint, as the hon. Member for Strangford said. In Scotland we do things differently, but we want everyone to benefit from our experiences and to have the same chance of good eye health. Will the Minister support a national eye health strategy? As has previously been mentioned, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) cannot be here today, but she recently introduced the National Eye Health Strategy Bill. Will the Minister support the Bill on Second Reading on Friday 3 March? Everyone here wants the best for people in their communities. The best way forward—and I would say this—is to look at the Scottish example and put aside the barriers that prevent people from having their eyes tested regularly.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, and to respond on behalf of the shadow Health and Social Care team. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate and for his continued advocacy on this issue. I particularly liked his description of the experience of walking with a guide dog, and how that lived experience has helped him become a campaigner. The hon. Member is a voice for issues that often do not get enough time in this place.
More than 2 million people live with sight loss in the UK, and by 2050 the number will reach 4 million. Ophthalmology is the NHS’s busiest outpatient service, with 7.5 million hospital attendees last year. With demand for eye care services set to soar by 40% over the next 20 years, it is vital that we get this right. The Government must have a plan.
We have all been sharing our personal experiences with eye services, and I am no stranger to them, having something quite unusual called keratoconus—it is particularly bad in my right eye. I understand how worrying it can be when one discovers that they have eye pathology.
I pay tribute to the continued campaigning work of the Association of Optometrists, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and so many others for their work on eye health. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who is a fantastic advocate on this issue. It is very welcome that NHS England has appointed the first ever national clinical director for eye care, a role that aims to put ophthalmology on a par with other major specialties and that will lead to the development of a national strategy.
As we have heard today, NHS eye services are not keeping pace with demand. Waiting lists for ophthalmology treatments have increased by more than 130% over the last 10 years. Over 650,000 patients are stuck on NHS ophthalmology waiting lists in England, with tens of thousands of patients waiting longer than a year. That is unacceptable. Those waiting lists have been longstanding; even pre-pandemic, the system was in trouble.
In 2018, the APPG on eye health and visual impairment found that the current system of eye care was failing patients on a “grand scale”. Waiting lists have increased every year since 2010. For years, there have been calls for the Government to act, but those calls have fallen on deaf ears. It is 12 years of Conservative Government failure that have caused waiting lists to grow and left ophthalmology services in the state they are in now. Patients simply deserve better.
Increased staffing pressures compound the issue. More than three quarters of units in the UK reported unfilled consultant posts, with over two thirds of hospital eye units using locum doctors to fill those vacancies. Many eye units rely, to a large extent, on non-medical clinical staff working in extended roles, or doing work traditionally performed by an ophthalmologist. I ask the Minister, what assessment has the Department made of the impact the current ophthalmologist workforce shortages are having on patient care? Will the upcoming workforce strategy include a commitment to fund the workforce that is identified as being needed to meet patient demand?
I am pleased that the debate as also focused on the devolved nations. In Northern Ireland, at the Western Health and Social Care Trust, the average wait for routine cataract surgery is more than six years. These are grandparents who cannot see their grandchildren properly; these are people who have to give up work because they cannot see. Patients are suffering. The stress and anxiety that long waits such as those have on patients cannot and should not be ignored. There is a huge personal cost. Here is yet another example of Government decisions costing people a full and healthy life.
Along with tackling the workforce challenges, enabling the effective integration of primary and secondary eye care services is key to the plan for eye health. The Labour-run Welsh Government are leading the way in ophthalmology data and referrals and in reform of the general ophthalmic services contract. Wales is ensuring that there is more detailed data on ophthalmology waiting lists. It is also developing a comprehensive, interoperable electronic patient record system, as recommended by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists. When will the Government be serious about eye health and do the same?
The next Labour Government will take eye health seriously. We will pull every available lever to get ophthalmology patients treated sooner. Sticking plasters are not enough. We need a Government that will grasp the root causes of the staffing crisis in the NHS. That is why Labour will end tax breaks for non-doms and use the money raised to expand our NHS workforce. The next Labour Government will train a new generation of doctors, nurses and midwives to treat patients on time again. We will double the number of medical school places to ensure we have the workforce that we need across different specialties, including ophthalmology.
Labour has a plan. I would be grateful if the Minister set out the Government’s position and explained to patients why they continue to wait so long for treatment. They cannot afford to wait any longer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O'Brien)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing forward this important debate. He has been a strong advocate for eye health for a long time. He speaks from huge knowledge and personal experience, and I listened to his speech with great interest. Given that health is a devolved matter, a lot of my response will focus on England, as he suggested. I understand that the devolved nations are facing similar challenges. We are always interested in sharing ideas and working with our counterparts, in answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows).
There are 2 million people living with sight loss, and that is predicted to double to 4 million by 2050 as a result of an ageing society. Sight loss is often preventable, and that is why prevention and early detection, along with access to diagnosis and timely treatment, are key. One of the best ways to protect our sight is to have regular sight tests. The hon. Member for Strangford rightly underlined why that is so important with his powerful story about the tennis ball-sized tumour that his constituent had taken out.
When combined with early treatment, sight tests can prevent people from losing their sight. That is why we continue to fund free NHS sight tests for many, including those on income-related benefits, those aged 60 and over, and those at risk of glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy —two of the main causes of preventable sight loss. More than 12 million NHS sight tests were provided to eligible groups in 2021-22. We also provide help with the cost of glasses and contact lenses through NHS optical vouchers. Eligible groups include children and those on income-related benefits. The NHS invests over £500 million annually to provide sight tests and optical vouchers.
The risk factors for sight loss include ageing, medical conditions such as diabetes, and lifestyle factors such as smoking and obesity. We are taking action to reduce obesity and smoking. Smoking rates in England are already the lowest in history, and we remain committed to going further to be smoke free by 2030. We are working to drive down the number of people who take up smoking, and we are supporting those who wish to quit. We are also working with the food industry to ensure that it is easier for people to make healthy choices, and we are supporting adults and children living with obesity to achieve and maintain a healthier weight.
Turning to the medical conditions that lead to sight loss, diabetic retinopathy—a common complication of diabetes—is a potentially sight-threatening condition. The diabetic retinopathy screening programme now provides screening to over 80% of those living with diabetes annually. Between 2010 and 2019-20, the number of adults aged between 16 and 64 who are registered annually as visually impaired due to diabetic retinopathy has fallen by 20%, meaning that it is no longer the main cause of sight loss in adults of working age. The screening programme has played a major role in that.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his helpful response. The target of providing retinopathy screening to 80% of those living with diabetes has been achieved. Are there any plans to try to reach the other 20%? I am diabetic. I had my retinopathy test about four weeks ago; I get it every year. I know the encouragement and confidence that testing gives people once they know they are okay. Are there any ideas for how we can get to the other 20%?
Neil O'Brien
Absolutely. As the hon. Gentleman says, we are keen to constantly drive that rate up, and we can talk more offline about the different things that we can potentially do to drive it up even further. The healthy child programme recommends eye examinations at birth, six weeks and age two, and school vision screening is also recommended for reception-age children.
The hon. Member for Strangford raised a question about a special school, which I will address specifically. The NHS long-term plan made a commitment to ensure that children and young people with a learning disability, autism or both who are in special residential schools have access to sight tests. NHS England’s proof of concept programme has been testing an NHS sight-testing model in both day and residential schools, and it is currently evaluating its proof of concept as part of programme development, which we expect to conclude towards the start of 2023. The evaluation will then inform decisions about the scope, funding and delivery of any future sight-testing model. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, at present, absolutely no decisions have been made; we are waiting for the evidence that that programme is generating.
I turn to secondary care. Once an issue with eye health is detected, it is vital that individuals have access to timely diagnosis and any necessary treatment. The NHS continued to prioritise those with urgent eye care needs throughout covid-19. However, we acknowledge the impact that the pandemic has had on our ophthalmology services, as it has had on other care pathways. Our fantastic NHS eye care teams are working hard to increase capacity and provide care as quickly as possible. We have set ambitious targets to recover services through the elective recovery plan, supported by more than £8 billion over the next two years, in addition to the £2 billion elective recovery fund and the £700 million targeted investment fund announced last year.
Neil O'Brien
I give way with pleasure to the hon. Lady, who has been hot-footing it from a funeral to attend the debate. I will seamlessly fill in, so she can catch her breath. I congratulate her on making it here.
Marsha De Cordova
I honestly thank the Minister for giving way. I have just got here from the funeral of a dear friend, Roger Lewis, who, as a totally blind man, was also a strong advocate for a national plan for eye care in England and the devolved nations. I congratulate my dear and honourable friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), on securing this very important debate.
As many Members will know, I currently have a Bill calling for a national strategy for eye health in England. We need to ensure that eye care provision is joined up across England to reduce avoidable sight loss but also, more importantly, to end the fragmentation of services. Is the Minister willing to meet me to discuss some of the provisions in the Bill, to ensure that we can create an eye care pathway that ensures that nobody who is losing their sight—or has already lost it—will go through the pathway without the right support and timely treatment?
Neil O'Brien
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, and I will be happy to meet her. It sounds like there is an important connection between where she has just been and this debate. I am extremely happy to meet her to talk about that.
I will continue setting out our strategy. I have already talked about screening in primary care, and I was setting out the sums of money that we are investing—the £8 billion plus the £2 billion—in elective recovery following the pandemic. NHS England has been supporting NHS trusts to increase capacity in surgical hubs, and the independent sector has also been used to increase the delivery of cataract surgery, in particular. In 2021-22, nearly half a million cataract procedures were provided on the NHS, which is actually more than before the pandemic, so that is recovering.
Beyond recovering from the pandemic and looking to the future, hospital eye care services are facing increasing demand. As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, ophthalmology is already the busiest out-patient speciality, and the predictions are that the demand for services will increase by 30% to 40% over the next 20 years as the result of an ageing society.
To help address these challenges, NHS England’s transformation programme is looking at how technology could allow more patients to be managed in the community and supported virtually through image sharing with specialists in NHS trusts. Current pilots for cataracts and glaucoma are allowing primary care practices to care for these patients and refer only those who need to be seen by specialists. The learning from these pilots will feed into any possible future service model. That could allow us to use the primary care workforce to alleviate some of the secondary care pressures.
I am delighted that the NHSE has appointed the first national clinical director for eye care, Louisa Wickham, who will oversee this work programme. I am aware that the APPG on eye health and visual impairment has called for there to be one Minister responsible for primary and secondary care services. I can confirm that my portfolio covers both those areas, so I will be taking an active interest in the development of that transformation programme and strategy.
A number of hon. Members have raised questions about the workforce, and we acknowledge that there are challenges across the system, including in ophthalmology. NHS England is developing a long-term workforce plan that will consider the number of staff and roles required and will set out the actions and reforms needed to improve workforce supply and retention. We have already invested in growing the ophthalmology workforce with more training places in 2022, but there is more to do. We are also improving training for existing staff so that they can work at the top of their licence.
Research is an area that the hon. Member for Strangford is interested in, and I was extremely sorry to hear from the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) about her keratoconus. That is one area where, fortunately, research and new treatments are coming online, so research is hugely important. While we have effective treatments, particularly for macular disease, we absolutely cannot rest on our laurels because medicine continues to evolve. We recognise that research and innovation are crucial to driving improvements in clinical care and improved outcomes for people living with sight-threatening conditions. The £5 billion investment in health-related research and development announced in the 2021 spending review reflects the Government’s commitment to supporting research into the most pressing challenges of our time, including sight loss.
Over the past five financial years, the National Institute for Health and Care Research has invested more than £100 million in funding and support for eye conditions research, and many of the studies focus specifically on sight loss. The NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre has recently been awarded £20 million from the NIHR for another five years of vision research, allowing it to continue its mission of preserving sight and driving equity through innovation. Through the NIHR, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland work together on a range of research topics, and the devolved Administrations co-fund several research programmes.
To assess how well interventions are achieving their intended aims, it is important that we track their impact, which hon. Members have mentioned. The public health outcomes framework’s preventable sight loss indicator tracks the rate of sight loss per 100,000 population for three of the most common causes of preventable sight loss: age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy.
We are making progress. The indicator shows the impact that the new treatments have had on the rate of sight loss due to age-related macular degeneration. Despite an ageing population, the rate of sight loss in 2019-20 was 105.4 cases per 100,000, down from 114 per 100,000 in 2015-16, so there has been an improvement on macular degeneration. The open availability of this data provides a valuable resource for integrated care boards to draw on in identifying what is needed in their areas and for local democratic accountability for any variation in performance against public health outcomes.
Jim Shannon
The answers are very helpful. One thing that all three Members referred to was the waiting list, and those who lose their eyesight just because they have been on a waiting list for diagnosis, examination and investigation. I know the pandemic created lots of problems in relation to the waiting list. Does the Department intend to have a strategy that will reduce the number of people on waiting lists to ensure that those waiting for a diagnosis retain their eyesight?
Neil O’Brien
I mentioned earlier that one of the main goals of the huge £8 billion plus £2 billion investment is in elective recovery because, as the hon. Gentleman said, the pandemic has had a huge impact. We have already cleared the number of people waiting for two years. The next milestone is to clear those waiting 18 months and then to work through the plan and bring down the numbers using that additional money over time, reducing those waiting the longest first and then steadily reducing the number of people waiting in total.
I acknowledge the importance of good vision throughout life, and especially as we get older. I hope that what I have outlined today provides some reassurance that we acknowledge the ongoing challenges faced by eye care services and are taking action to address them.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Members who spoke in the debate. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) brought a breadth of knowledge to it, and we thank her for that. As I said earlier, I always like to hear what the other devolved nations are doing, and she outlined very well what Scotland is doing. With the See Hear provision, Scotland is expanding its eyesight services, with regular checks and free examinations every two years. She referred to her personal circumstances—it is always good to bring a personal story—of having had cataracts in both eyes. She does not miss too much, so I think we can be pretty sure that her eyesight has greatly improved. She also referred to improving people’s quality of life with eyesight care, and she referred to smoking, drinking and diet and the need to address those three things.
Every one of the things that the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw referred to was also referred to by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan). She referred to the need for a plan, and to people waiting for six years at the Western Health and Social Care Trust in Northern Ireland. My goodness—that is unbelievable. My mum waited three years for a cataracts operation. She was not desperate for it, so she did not mind waiting for three years, but in the last six months it was coming to the stage where she was unable to drive, which was a problem.
The hon. Member for Tooting said that patients deserve better, and she referred to the staff shortages—I think the Minister heard about that very clearly—and the integration of services. She gave Wales as an example. We hear much about Wales in a negative fashion; today, she introduced a positive. It is evidentially-based as well, which means that it is absolutely on the button. Again, we thank her for that. She also referred to the new IT system in Wales, and the fact that patients cannot wait any longer.
I gave an apology for the circumstances of my friend, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), which we understand, and I spoke to you personally beforehand, Mr Sharma, so you know the reason for it. We really missed her contribution to the debate because she brings a wealth and a breadth of knowledge. I commend her for being the chair of the APPG on eye health and visual impairment. She was able to make an intervention that was as good as a speech, so well done to her.
I thank the Minister, as always. He comes with a positive attitude, which we are all very pleased to see. He is committed to sharing ideas with the regions. I want to see that. The hon. Members for Motherwell and Wishaw, for Tooting and for Battersea want to see that as well. The Minister referred to the 12 million eye tests in 2021-22. That is an achievement. We cannot deny the positive things that he referred to. He also referred to ageing, diabetes, childcare and the healthy child programme, learning disabilities and, in answer to my question, the steps that have been taken to address eye tests for children who are disabled and educationally challenged. I think that is good. Those are some of the things that the hon. Member for Battersea and all of us present are very keen to see.
The Minister was also very positive in relation to primary and secondary care combined under his ministership. He confirmed that one of things that we asked for has happened, which is good news. He also referred to the workforce, which we have some concerns about; I think the shadow Minister referred to them, and I know that I did. It is important that we have strategy to fill those vacancies.
Lastly, research has moved on fantastically. I went to an event in Portcullis House yesterday on some of the medical research that has been done. The advances in medicine are incredible. We can never fail to be moved or encouraged by what we see. The investment and research that the Minister referred to is good. On the waiting lists issue for reversible sight loss and elective recovery, the moneys are there to make that happen.
In introducing the debate, I referred to the lovely terminology that we use for all the different groups that come together: The Eyes Have It. Well, today, the ayes have it. The Minister has given us a very positive response, and we thank him for it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered a blueprint for eye health in England and the devolved nations.
Written Statements
"Help to Grow: Digital”: Scheme Closure
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Grant Shapps)
This statement concerns the Government’s decision to close the Help to Grow: Digital programme. Help to Grow: Digital will close to new business applications for discounts on 2 February 2023. Discounts issued for eligible software must be redeemed within 30 days from issue date.
The scheme has supported businesses to grow, but with take-up lower than expected, the Government cannot justify the continued cost of the schemes to the taxpayer. The decision has been taken to refocus efforts towards other support mechanisms for small businesses, ensuring businesses get the backing they need in the most efficient and productive way possible. The Help to Grow: Management scheme remains in place.
The Government continue to support small businesses, such as through the Government-backed British Business Bank’s start-up loans, which are available to help aspiring entrepreneurs start and grow their businesses. The Government have taken action to protect all eligible UK businesses, including small businesses, from rising energy costs through the energy bill relief scheme.
[HCWS450]
Government Transparency and Accountability
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
My noble Friend the Minister of State (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) has today made the following written statement:
Since 2010, the Government have been at the forefront of opening up data to allow Parliament, the public and the media to hold public bodies to account. Such online transparency is crucial to delivering value for money, cutting waste and inefficiency, and ensuring every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent in the best possible way.
The Government will continue to look at how the range of information published by the Government can be improved and made as useful as possible to the public, press and Parliament. The following subject areas include documents and information that the Government are due to publish.
Routine transparency data on Ministers, special advisers and senior officials
Departments will today be publishing routine transparency data on Ministers’, special advisers’ and senior officials’ gifts, hospitality, travel and external meetings, for the period of July to September 2022. This data covers the returns for the Prime Minister, Government Chief Whip and Leaders of the House of Commons and the Lords, as well as the Cabinet Office.
Departments will also be publishing the business appointment rules advice summary for the same period.
List of ministerial responsibilities
The Government will today be publishing the list of ministerial responsibilities on gov.uk. Copies will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. The list includes details of ministerial Departments, the Ministers within each Department, their portfolio responsibilities and private offices and the executive agencies within each Department.
Salaries of Members of His Majesty’s Government
The Government will today be updating the salaries of Members of His Majesty’s Government with information for the financial year 2022-2023 on gov.uk. This indicates the salaries to which Ministers are entitled and the actual salaries that they claim, along with supplementary information on ministerial salaries, allowances and payments on leaving office.
Cabinet Office annual report and accounts 2021-22
This annual report and accounts will also be laid before Parliament today. The publication includes the Cabinet Office’s audited financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2022 and a review of performance and governance arrangements. The annual report will be published on gov.uk.
Cabinet Office accounting officer system statement 2022
This publication is a single statement setting out all of the accountability relationships and processes within the Department. This update takes into account change since the previous version was published in 2020.1 have requested that a copy of the accounting officer system statement be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. The publication will also be published on gov.uk.
Cabinet Office: Spend control data for July to September2022
Along with all Government Departments, in 2010 the Cabinet Office committed to publish quarterly data on its planned spending that has been subject to the Cabinet Office spend controls. The spend controls covered are digital and technology, commercial, property, advertising, marketing and communications, and contingent labour (as for equivalent figures published by other Departments). For the quarter covered, 12 separate items of the Cabinet Office’s own spending (with a total value of £734 million) were approved under the cross-Government Cabinet Office spending control.
Monthly workforce management information (September and October2022)
As standard, the Government are today publishing our monthly breakdown of workforce headcount and pay costs. This is a routine publication and will be published on gov.uk.
Public procurement review service—progress report 2021-22
The Government will today publish their annual progress report, detailing trends in issues raised to the public procurement review service. In this publication, we look to consider such trends and make recommendations on how to improve the service moving forwards. The report will be published, as usual, on gov.uk.
[HCWS449]
Life Insurance Taxation
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
The Government are announcing the following measure— of which there are two components—which will take immediate effect from today.
The first part of the measure applies to re-insurers of a specific type of long-term insurance business known as basic life assurance and general annuity business (BLAGAB). It addresses a possible tax mismatch in the life insurance rules where re-insurance precedes a transfer of BLAGAB. In this situation the measure eliminates the possibility of a mismatch by classifying the re-insured business as BLAGAB in the hands of the re-insurer. This will protect Exchequer revenues needed to fund vital public services.
The second part of the measure addresses an industry concern that the current scope of section 92 of the Finance Act 2012 may be unnecessarily wide and is blocking commercial transactions. It amends that section so that it does not apply where substantially all the insurance risks of a book of BLAGAB are assumed by a re-insurer.
The draft legislation will be published today on gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/re-insurance-in-the-course-of-transfers-of-long-term-business. It will be accompanied by a tax information and impact note and an explanatory note. A copy of the legislation will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS453]
Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022: Treasury Directions
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Government are committed to public service pensions which are fair to public sector workers. In 2015 (2014 for local government workers in England and Wales), reforms were made to public service pension schemes in England and Wales to provide workers with fairer pensions arrangements and to make the pension schemes more sustainable and affordable for the longer term. These reforms followed the recommendations of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission. The Government believe the 2015 changes to public service pensions balanced the interests of public service workers, employers and taxpayers fairly.
However, when the reforms were introduced, they provided “transitional protections” which allowed members who were close to retirement to remain in the previous scheme (the legacy scheme). In December 2018, the Court of Appeal found that these transitional protections in the judicial and firefighters’ pension schemes gave rise to unlawful discrimination (the McCloud and Sargeant case).
The Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 was enacted to remedy the discrimination identified by the courts. The Act provides a retrospective remedy, such that affected members are treated as if they had always been in the legacy scheme for their period of remediable service, as well as providing affected members a choice of which pension benefits they wish to receive for that period when those benefits are put into payment. The detail of the retrospective remedy for affected members will be set out in scheme regulations made under the Act for each affected pension scheme. The retrospective remedy is due to come into force by 1 October 2023.
The Act provides for HM Treasury to make directions to set out how schemes must exercise the powers provided in the Act in making scheme regulations. The Government have made and published Treasury directions today and they are available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-service-pensions-and-judicial-offices-act-2022-treasury-directions.
The directions ensure that scheme regulations for the public service schemes can implement a comprehensive remedy for affected members. The directions provide for consistent treatment across the public service pension schemes to enable schemes to return members to the position they would have been in had the discrimination not arisen. The publication of the Treasury directions today enables the responsible authorities—the Secretaries of State with responsibility for the public service schemes and the Welsh and Scottish Ministers for the devolved schemes—to proceed to develop and consult their stakeholders on scheme regulations to deliver the remedy in each of the public service schemes. Following consultation, the Secretaries of State responsible for the pension schemes for the NHS, teachers, local government workers and police in England and Wales, firefighters in England, the UK armed forces and the civil service in Great Britain, will then make and lay secondary legislation in Parliament. Scheme regulations must come into force by 1 October 2023.
[HCWS452]
Ian Paterson: Patient Safety and Government Implementation Plan
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
On 16 December 2021, the Government published their response to the findings of the inquiry into the issues raised by disgraced surgeon, Ian Paterson. We reiterated the apologies of the Government to the patients affected and those close to them and committed to ensuring we did more to protect patients in the future.
In line with this commitment, the Government accepted the overwhelming majority of the recommendations made by the inquiry and set out an implementation plan of 40 actions to put those recommendations into effect. Finally, we committed to providing a further update on the progress of this implementation plan in 12-months’ time. I am happy to be able to publish this report fulfilling that commitment today.
All the relevant bodies within the health sector have been united in understanding that these changes are essential. We all agree that patients cannot be failed in the same way again. On behalf of the Government, I want to thank every organisation that has engaged in this process for their commitment to making improvements. I would especially like to thank the representatives of patient groups impacted by Ian Paterson, who have campaigned tirelessly to ensure their experiences do not go unheeded. They have continued to be a source of inspiration and expertise throughout the implementation period.
I am pleased to report that good progress has been made across the implementation plan which we set out in December 2021. The report published today provides full details of this progress against the four themes of the Government’s response as laid out in the implementation plan. In this statement, I will highlight some of the most important developments under each of these themes.
Patient-centred information
Patients now have more access to information relevant to their treatment than they did during Ian Paterson’s time practising. This includes access to information about the performance of consultants working for independent sector healthcare providers, and specialties in the NHS. These continue to be added to, so patients will have more, and better, access to independent information before choosing a consultant. NHS England (NHSE) will work with the professions so that meaningful consultant-level information on the numbers and types of procedures performed should be made publicly available. If patients choose to be treated in the independent sector, there is now more information about what to expect, with further information to be made available over the coming year.
Patients now have the right to access their treatment records and clinicians are aware of the need to write to patients directly following a consultation or treatment, rather than only writing to their GP. This information gives patients a record of their condition, and test results to reflect on, or to seek a second opinion if required. This is reinforced by ensuring patients gets the time they need to consider treatment options and have access to a range of new resources to help them consider their options; options that patients will also be able to discuss with medical professionals who are equipped to handle these conversations.
Making challenge heard
Doctors across more specialties now have independent data on their practice available and will be required to use this as part of their appraisal and revalidation processes. This will help to identify issues and fix them. Staff in the health system also have more opportunities to make their voices heard about a patient’s care, including through clarified guidance and assessment of multidisciplinary team use as a forum.
Care Quality Commission (CQC) updated its guidance on complaints processes in early 2022. It is now easier for patients to raise concerns about treatment they receive and access independent resolution of their complaint if they are unsatisfied with the provider’s handling. As part of the implementation of the NHS patient safety strategy, NHSE has introduced measures to advance safety and the response to harm. The Government have appointed the first ever patient safety commissioner for England, Dr Henrietta Hughes OBE.
Ensuring accountability
CQC published the new single assessment framework in July 2022, which sets out what good care looks like, and National Quality Board published national guidance on system quality groups, setting out the requirements for quality governance in integrated care systems.
Alongside this, we have seen significant culture change in the independent sector, now leaving no doubt that independent providers must take responsibility for maintaining high standards of care in their facilities, irrespective of how the medical professionals involved are engaged by them (through employment or practising privileges). This has been supported by Independent Healthcare Providers Network’s refresh of the medical practitioners assurance framework in September 2022. NHS Resolution launched new exclusion guidance in April 2022.
Putting things right
Patients who are impacted by potential issues with their care will be reviewed through recall processes which are now better informed of how to put patients at the centre of their focus. The new national recall framework was published in June 2022 to facilitate this.
Patients will continue to receive apologies from healthcare professionals and providers for potential issues with their care when appropriate. Enhanced training and resources are now available to clinicians to ensure these apologies are delivered effectively and meaningfully.
The Government are working to ensure that any future changes to indemnity and insurance arrangements will be made using the best evidence base available. This includes a thorough assessment of the impact on patients, healthcare professionals, providers, and the wider market; with the aim of improving the position for patients when receiving treatment from any regulated healthcare professional, regardless of the setting. The Government’s ambition is that when this work concludes, patients have confidence that they can access appropriate compensation if harmed while receiving care, including when harm arises from criminal/intentional acts or omissions. The summary of responses to the consultation on appropriate clinical negligence cover for regulated healthcare professionals will be published alongside this implementation update on 15 December 2022.
The Government will be continuing to ensure this work is built upon, as part of our wider commitment to ensuring patient safety and high standards of care across the health system. We understand that there is no room for complacency when it comes to patient safety and, together with the patient safety commissioner, will make sure this is one building block towards a health system in which patients and those close to them can have the maximum possible confidence.
Copies of the Government’s full implementation update will be available at: https://www.gov.uk.
[HCWS455]
Rape Review Action Plan
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
The Government are today publishing a progress report 18 months on from the publication of the end-to-end rape review action plan. This is the third six-monthly progress report on implementation of the rape review action plan and demonstrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to be transparent and accountable to the public on our progress in delivering the ambitions of the rape review.
The latest progress report sets out that we are on track to meet our ambitions in the review to more than double the number of adult rape cases reaching court by the end of this Parliament. In Q2 2022, compared with the 2019 quarterly average, adult rape police referrals to the Crown Prosecution Service were up 95%, CPS adult rape charges were up 65% and the number of adult rape cases reaching Crown Court were up 91%.
The Government have also today published an independently authored report on the policing aspects of Operation Soteria, a policing and CPS programme to develop new operating models for the investigation and prosecution of rape in England and Wales by June 2023. The report outlines the key findings from research in five police forces and provides an initial draft of the national operating model for the investigation of rape which will be available to all police forces from June 2023.
The rape review progress report sets out that:
We are also publishing today a series of user-friendly guides on gov.uk for victims of rape and sexual assault, to enable victims to better understand what they can expect as their case progresses through the criminal justice system.
We have launched the 24/7 rape and sexual abuse support line which will provide all victims and survivors access to dedicated support whenever and wherever they need it.
We have also completed the expansion of Operation Soteria to a further 14 police forces and three further CPS areas. The aims of this ambitious joint police and CPS programme of work include:
Improve relationships between police and CPS and prioritise early collaboration so strong cases can be built as early as possible;
Improve victim communication including a pledge for more frequent contact and a clear guide to explain the justice process;
Strengthen the partnership between independent sexual violence advisers, CPS and police to better co-ordinate support for victims.
We successfully rolled out pre-recorded cross-examination for victims of sexual offences, a vital measure now available in all Crown Courts across England and Wales. This will spare survivors and victims the trauma of giving evidence in the glare of a courtroom.
We introduced new powers through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Act to stop unnecessary and intrusive requests for victims’ phones and we are continuing to work with police forces to ensure they have the capability to return victims devices within 24 hours.
These actions form part of the Government’s ambition to create meaningful cross-system change, improve the experience of victims and bring more perpetrators to justice.
[HCWS448]
Personal Independence Payment
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
Today the Department will publish the latest update on progress on making backdated payments to personal independence payment claimants who are affected by the MH and RJ decisions of the Upper Tribunal (UT). The release will be published at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/pip-administrative-exercise-progress-on-cases-cleared.
The MH decision changed how overwhelming psychological distress is considered when assessing someone’s ability to plan and follow a journey. The RJ decision changed how we decide whether someone can carry out an activity safely and if they need supervision.
As at the end of November 2022, we have reviewed around 990,000 cases against the MH decision. This includes cases where claimants have previously been assessed as having “overwhelming psychological distress” or who have a “psychiatric disorder” as one of their health conditions. We have also reviewed around 1,100,000 cases against the RJ decision. This includes cases where claimants have a “neurological disease” as one of their health conditions. All reviews will have been carried out by a case manager within the Department.
Around 8,400 arrears payments, totalling around £44 million, have been made. No one should have seen their PIP reduced because of this exercise.
In addition, we will continue to review any case for any claimant who asks us to.
This has been a complex and substantial exercise, involving over 2,090,000 reviews against two UT decisions. Our approach demonstrates that we have prioritised claimants who are most likely to benefit, to make backdated payments as quickly as possible.
We have set out further background to this release in an updated “Frequently Asked Questions”. I will deposit a copy of this document and the statistical release in the Library of the House.
[HCWS451]
UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Follow-up Report
(2 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
Today, I will place in the Library of the House a copy of the UK’s 2022 follow-up report to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, following the 2016 inquiry.
This Government are committed to eliminating barriers faced by disabled people, in order to realise their full participation and inclusion in society. The follow-up report demonstrates how we are implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and showcases positive action taking place across the UK to support disabled people.
The UK Government have implemented numerous policies and programmes to tackle the barriers faced by disabled people relevant to the articles examined by the inquiry, as highlighted in our latest report to the UN Committee for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
We have seen 1.3 million more disabled people in work than in 2017—delivering a Government commitment five years early. We are investing £1.3 billion over three years in employment support for disabled people and people with health conditions.
The Government are providing households with cost of living support totalling over £37 billion this year. This includes a £650 cost of living payment for people on means-tested benefits. In addition to this, six million eligible disabled people have received a one-off, disability cost of living payment of £150 to help with additional costs.
We are reforming social care support to improve disabled people’s access to care services and ensure integrated health and care support. Increased funding for adult social care will also ensure a fairer cost of care for both carers and patients. Improvements in the accessibility of homes and transport are helping disabled people to live independently and have a better standard of living.
We supported the passage of the British Sign Language (BSL) Act (2022) which recognises BSL as a language of England, Wales and Scotland in its own right. A BSL advisory board is being established to guide implementation of the Act from the perspective of people who use BSL.
Recognising the need for wider societal change across all industries, our 19 disability and access ambassadors are using their expertise and influence in business to help drive and support changes in access for disabled consumers and employees.
Alongside this, we recognise the importance of co-ordinated action across Government, reflecting the full range of services and opportunities that deliver full participation. Our ministerial disability champions have been supporting and driving forward work on disability in their respective departments.
We continue to engage with disabled people and stake-holders through disabled people’s organisations, networks and relevant organisations. This is to ensure that lived experience underpins regular and co-ordinated action across Government. We remain committed to improving the lives of disabled people and making our society a more inclusive and accessible place for all disabled people.
[HCWS454]
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Ramsbotham
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on 13 December. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Retailers: Cash
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with retailers and other outlets concerning their acceptance of cash as legal tender.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, Ministers and officials have meetings with a variety of organisations in the public and private sectors, including on access to cash and related issues. Details of ministerial meetings are published on a quarterly basis. Regarding cash acceptance, it should remain the choice of organisations whether to accept or decline any form of payment. The Government’s legislation in the Financial Services and Markets Bill intends to support cash acceptance by ensuring that businesses have reasonable access to deposit facilities.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend, in particular for standing in at short notice when the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, was delayed. I think that this is the first time that he has answered a Question; can I be the first to congratulate him? However, are the Government aware of the scale of the problem faced? Some 5 million people—some of the most vulnerable in our society—depend on cash. Forcing such people to use plastic cannot be a good idea. Some 20 million of us use cash more than twice a week, and on average three cash machines are taken out of service every day. If my noble friend and his officials think that I am exaggerating, they might care to read the article in the Financial Times last week about offering lifelines to people struggling in a cashless society.
Lord Harlech (Con)
The Government want to ensure that people have appropriate access to financial products and services, which includes bank accounts, payment services and cash. LINK, the operator of the UK’s largest ATM network, has established a number of initiatives to protect the broad geographic spread of free-to-use ATMs. LINK has committed to protecting free-to-use ATMs more than a kilometre away from the nearest free ATM or post office, and is held to account against this commitment by the Payment Systems Regulator.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I also welcome the Minister to his role. Thanks to the excellent work of the Access to Cash Action Group and LINK, new banking hubs are planned where a community is bereft of bank branches, which will permit the kind of deposits that the noble Lord named in his Question. Since the scheme is vital for access to cash, should the banks be permitted to veto approval of a hub in an area that meets the criteria?
Lord Harlech (Con)
Following the Government’s commitment to legislate, industry is working together to develop new initiatives to provide shared access to cash services. This includes a process for LINK to access a community’s cash needs in the event of a closure of a core cash service or a request from a local community. In circumstances where LINK considers that a community requires additional cash services, industry will ensure a suitable shared solution in that community.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, the Cash Census report published earlier this year warned:
“While a cashless society would feel like progress for some … for millions it would lead to anxiety, economic exclusion, isolation, exploitation, debt”
and “rising costs”. Does the Minister accept that cash is still the major means of spending for a substantial proportion of our society, and that retailers should be required to accept legal currency?
Lord Harlech (Con)
The definition of “legal tender” is quite narrow. However, the ongoing trend in payments in the UK has been away from cash and towards card payments and other digital transactions. However, cash continues to be used by millions of people across the UK, including those in vulnerable groups. The Government are legislating to ensure reasonable provision of cash withdrawal and deposit facilities.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
Following that answer, I say that there is a real problem with the non-acceptance of cash. We all find it at different times. It is not a problem for me, but it is for those who do not have bank accounts, debit cards and credit cards. Will the Government consider having a proper review to address this, so that small businesses that find cash a nuisance can manage and that everyday people can use cash when they want to?
Lord Harlech (Con)
As my noble friend will know, technology and consumer behaviour are changing and it remains the choice of individual organisations whether to accept or decline any form of payment, including cash or card, based on a consideration of factors, such as customer preference and cost. However, the Government consider that their legislation in the Financial Services and Markets Bill will support organisations, including local businesses, to continue accepting cash by ensuring that they have reasonable access to deposit facilities. As I said, legal tender has a narrow technical meaning: it means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to someone in legal tender, they cannot sue you for failing to repay.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, this is a problem that particularly affects rural areas, where there are far fewer cash-dispensing machines. Also, there are many parts of rural areas where there is no internet, so even if you want to pay by BACS or direct transfer, you just cannot do it. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will properly rural-proof this discussion so that we are able to ensure that rural areas can still function effectively?
Lord Harlech (Con)
As someone who comes from a rural community, I know only too well the trials and tribulations of getting a good connection. The Government recognise that digital inclusion needs to be promoted alongside financial inclusion. That is why we are committed to ensuring that everyone has access to digital infrastructure and the skills necessary to participate fully in society, and that very much includes rural areas. In 2021, the Government launched Project Gigabit, which committed a landmark £5 billion to support the rollout of gigabit connectivity in the hardest-to-reach areas.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I too welcome the Minister to his place. I remember in similar circumstances when I was on that Front Bench explaining to the civil servants that Question Time is a blood sport—and you, my friend, are the fox. When a shop opts not to accept cash, in most cases customers are able to go elsewhere. However, when it comes to services such as car parks, there is often no alternative available. Many are happy to pay for parking on apps or over the phone, but a sizeable number are not. What does the Minister suggest that those people do when they arrive and find, without any consultation, that the pay machines have been decommissioned?
Lord Harlech (Con)
I have suffered that situation myself. A customer intending to park who has not been warned that payment has moved from a cash or coin system to digital-only should take that up immediately with the council or whoever is administering that parking space on behalf of the local council.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, there is another problem. Because so many banks are closing their branches, one of the shopkeepers in my part of east Devon says that he cannot accept cash because he has to go seven or eight miles to the bank and cannot get there because his shop is open until six in the evening. Could the Minister look at the issue of bank branch closures set beside the question of cash?
Lord Harlech (Con)
Since 2019, the Government have chaired the Financial Inclusion Policy Forum, bringing together the financial services industry, consumer groups, the regulator and the third sector. We have also published an annual report on the Government’s work on financial inclusion. The most recent report was published in December 2021. Since 2019, the Government have allocated £100 million of funding from dormant assets towards financial inclusion.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, and I assure the House that he is also an excellent Whip. I served on the House’s Select Committee on post-Covid recovery. We received evidence on this from retailers and individuals. The substantive point is that, if you do not have a bank account, you are excluded from shops cand cafes that you have visited for many years. You are forced to go into other shops where the choice is not as great. What happens is a very strange and unusual piece of social exclusion in which you find yourself paying more for less choice. What discussions has my noble friend had with the banking industry to increase the availability of accounts for people who do not have them? Will he give us his best estimate of the number of households that do not have a single bank account?
Lord Harlech (Con)
My noble friend makes an excellent point that, to be fully included in society, a working bank account is essential. I will certainly take that back to the department to ensure that the Treasury communicates with the banking and financial services sector to make the opening of a bank account as easy and accessible as possible. I will try to write to him on the number of households which do not currently have a bank account.
Tax-free Shopping
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Vaizey of Didcot
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact on the United Kingdom economy of the abolition of tax-free shopping.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, as part of the reversal of almost all the tax measures set out in the growth plan, the Government are not proceeding with plans to introduce a new VAT-free shopping scheme. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment of the withdrawal of the previous VAT-free shopping schemes showed that this would raise a significant amount of revenue and have a small and limited behavioural effect on tourists’ decisions to visit the UK.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that, far from costing the Treasury £2 billion a year, reintroducing tax-free shopping would net the Treasury some £350 million a year? Tax-free shopping supports many important industries in our country, such as Harris tweed—as so brilliantly sported by my noble friend Lord Pickles in support of my Question. The introduction of tax-free shopping is supported by the left-wing Mayor of London and the left-wing SNP. In this country we are lucky to have numerous new Governments; whether it is levelling up, growth or economic stability, tax-free shopping supports all three. Will the Minister reconsider the Treasury’s nonsensical decision to abolish it?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Well, what I can say is that, on 28 November, HMRC and HMT officials held a round table with industry stakeholders to collate feedback on the Chancellor’s decision to withdraw the introduction. As I indicated in my initial Answer, evidence from VisitBritain continues to show that the key motivators for tourists visiting the UK are our rich history and heritage and vibrant towns and cities, and less so shopping.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, international tourists used to make up half of Mulberry’s trade in London; now it is almost none. Does not that immediately tell the Government something about the significant effect this is now having on the tourist trade? European cities will be the winners and we will be the losers unless the Government change their mind.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I do not agree with the noble Earl. Introducing VAT-free shopping would come at a significant fiscal cost because it would subsidise a large amount of tourist spending that already occurs without any relief in place. This is supported by OBR estimates which found that the withdrawal of the previous schemes would reduce visitor numbers by only 0.07%.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, do the Government understand that it may not affect the number of tourists who come to the UK, but they will stop spending in the shops and that will be lost revenue? Will the Minister not reconsider this matter?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Well, it has been considered—as I say, we had a round table in November—and the benefit is pretty marginal. As far as I can tell from walking around London, the visitors are still flooding into Britain. We also need to look to next year, when we have the Coronation, and remember that we must look after the visitors who come here. But, as I pointed out, the actual benefits are marginal.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, will the Government consider doing a proper cost-benefit analysis of this, which they have never done? Small shops are very much reporting that the actual spend has dropped very significantly. At a time when retail is under so much pressure, that additional loss will drive people out of business.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
We do not have any plans to analyse this further. As I have said before, fewer than one in 10 non-EU visitors used the previous VAT-free shopping scheme, indicating that it is really not a pull factor for tourists. Canada and New Zealand also do not offer this type of tax-free shopping on the high street, and the USA does not have a countrywide system, yet all these countries are popular tourist destinations.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, the Treasury has a long history of downplaying the secondary effects of tax reductions. It has done it on corporation tax and the IR35. Oxford Economics tells us that 1.6 million visitors are attracted by VAT-free shopping. All those queues of people from China outside Harvey Nicks, Bicester Village and so on are bringing much- needed revenue to our economy. Will my noble friend the Minister ask his friends in the Treasury to reconsider the dynamic effects of this and other tax cuts?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
We have no plans to reconsider this. I know that about 80% of the effect of this is on retailers—for whom I have some sympathy, I should say—in London, and 10% in Bicester Village. It is very much focused on those areas and we do not have any plans to rethink it.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, is it not sending quite an unwelcoming message to our European and American friends if, when they come here, they do not get VAT back, but when we shop in America or any country in the European Union we get their VAT back?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Yes, but it comes back to the initial analysis by the OBR, which is very clear. As my noble friend will be aware, there was a judicial review in May 2021 and the judge ruled very much in the Government’s favour. There was also a very clear vote in Parliament on the matter, so I too am very clear on it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Can the Minister tell us whether the effective devaluation of the pound against the euro and the dollar is a subtle way of attracting tourists?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord is ingenious in what he brings up. It is fair to say that the value of the pound has helped in bringing tourists to London. I say again that London right now is full of people from abroad walking around—and also from the domestic side, despite the fact that the cost of living crisis is hitting the most vulnerable and we are very aware of that.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, why does my noble friend not exercise a little imagination? He referred to the Coronation; people will flock to this country. Let us have a Coronation bonus period to see whether this really works. I am sure he will then be converted.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I take note of what my noble friend says but, as I say, we have no plans to change this policy.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend not immensely encouraged by the enthusiasm for tax cuts on the Opposition Benches?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend makes an excellent point.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, the arguments for tax-free shopping range from a £2 billion cost to the Treasury to a £4 billion benefit to the wider economy; I cite the recent survey from Oxford Economics. Whatever the truth, given the dire need for economic growth, surely it falls on the Treasury to at least review these important numbers.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I can go this far, which the House will take at face value: of course, all taxes remain under review. The estimated cost of introducing a new scheme was around £2 billion per year. Although this would have stimulated additional retail spending, which HMRC estimated to be around £2 billion to £2.5 billion, it is a substantial cost to UK taxpayers and the relief would subsidise a significant number of purchases that occur without any relief in place, as I mentioned earlier.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, while it might not have been the primary driver of tourism into the UK, tax-free shopping certainly incentivised extra spending during people’s stays. It was right to scrap the chaotic mini-Budget, but can the Minister understand the frustration of retailers who have argued for years for the scheme’s return, only to have their reward taken away because the Conservative Party crashed the economy?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As I said earlier, on a serious note I have some sympathy for retailers—we admit that they will see some falling off of business—but I have made it quite clear that this is very much focused on London and Bicester Village. Having said all that, I live near Bicester Village and the queues going in on Sunday were enormous. Evidence from VisitBritain continues to show that the key motivators are still not to do with shopping and much to do with coming to see our excellent sights around the country.
Baroness Browning (Con)
In my noble friend’s Answer to our noble friend Lord Vaizey, he said this had been decided at a round-table meeting in the Treasury. Could we know who the people around this table are? Are they shoppers? For the record—please do not take offence at this—I would like to know the gender of this circular table.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Hopefully, I made it clear that the round table was for industry stakeholders to collate feedback on the Chancellor’s decision. There were three main concerns, which I am not going to go through. It was really to show that the Government remain in listening mode and taxes remain under review—which is true—but we do not have any plans to change this policy.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Perhaps I can come in and defend the Minister for a moment. We should actually be thinking about shopping less. I am so sorry to say this to a bunch of such dedicated shoppers, but we should make do with less and understand that the climate crisis means we should perhaps want to possess less as well.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am almost tempted to agree with the noble Baroness—but, no, we want to encourage people to shop. On the matter of tourism itself, I am pleased to say that inbound tourism bookings were at about 70% of 2019 levels for the first half of the year. Although I admit our recovery is slower than that of a number of our close international competitors, there is a bit of a nuanced picture because, as I alluded to earlier, domestic tourism has seen a better recovery trajectory than inbound tourism levels. So watch this space; as I said, it is a slightly better picture than has been made out from certain quarters.
Housing: Cost of Living
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
To ask His Majesty’s Government, given the increased cost of living, what actions they will take to ensure that housing is affordable in relation to household incomes in (1) the private rented sector, (2) the social housing sector, and (3) for homeowners with mortgages.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the cost of living pressures that people are facing across this country, particularly this winter. Local housing allowance rates have been maintained at their increased level following a boost in investment of nearly £1 billion in April 2020. The Government have also capped social housing rent increases for 2023-24 at 7% to protect social tenants from higher rent increases, and last week we published a mortgage support statement setting out the support available to mortgage holders.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer to what I know was quite a broad Question. However, this winter nearly 1 million private renters are at risk of being evicted, many social housing tenants struggle despite the Government’s 7% social rent cap and home owners face high interest rates. If ever there were a need for a long-term cross-party housing strategy to address the lack of truly affordable housing, surely it is now. Will the Minister commit to developing such a strategy, as recommended by the Archbishops’ housing commission report, Coming Home?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question, and I think it is an extremely interesting opportunity. I would like to talk to her in further detail about that because I have read the report Coming Home and I think the idea of the five S’s—sustainable, safe, stable, social and satisfying housing—is a wonderful thing to aspire to. I cannot offer her a long-term cross-party review at this time, but I would like to talk to her further and talk to my officials about that.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, 20% of families in England now rent privately and one-third of them rely on housing benefit. That is capped by the local housing allowance, which was fixed on rents in 2019 and has been frozen for five years, although rents are rising rapidly—by 12% in the last year. This means that a family with a two-bedroom house faces a shortfall of some £1,500 a year that they have to meet out of the rest of their benefit. Does my noble friend recognise the difficulties that this can cause? Is there a case for the Chancellor, in his forthcoming Budget, reviewing the decision to freeze the local housing allowance?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think my noble friend understands that I cannot offer anything on behalf of the Chancellor next spring, but I can say that it is something that we need to discuss. I shall be taking this issue back to officials to discuss it fully before we get anywhere near the Spring Statement.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, in 1980 some 30% of housing was available for rent as social housing; now that figure is down to 17%. Given that there are around 190,000 people on local authorities’ waiting lists for houses, what are the Government going to do about the acute shortage of social housing?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Lord is right that it is a challenge for this country and this Government to provide more affordable homes. That is why we have an £11.5 billion affordable homes programme, which will deliver tens of thousands of affordable homes right across the country. It is important that we are delivering that, and we will continue to do so.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, what are the Government doing in relation to SMEs working in the housing sector, particularly given inflation and rising finance costs?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Government have a number of schemes that we are using to support small and medium-sized house builders to help them to provide not only social housing but also private housing. I am happy to write to my noble friend with all that information.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, the Affordable Housing Commission, which I had the honour of chairing, has recommended a national fund to enable social housing landlords to acquire and modernise the properties of those private landlords who now want to exit from the market. Does the Minister agree that that would produce an enormously good bang for the buck? Not only would we swiftly get more social housing that was secure for those who lived in it, but we would see the modernisation of properties that need to be decarbonised, thereby reducing fuel poverty at the same time.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Yes, I agree with that. We are seeing some difficulties within the private rented sector because of the issues of the maintenance of these private properties, but also because of the expectations, as the noble Lord said, about the decarbonisation of those properties. That is why we are offering a number of funding streams to SMEs at the moment in order to do that.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, given the Minister’s earlier answer to the noble Lord, Lord Young, will she concede that the Government’s refusal to unfreeze housing benefit and raise the local housing allowance is ignoring a rental crisis that is already unfolding, particularly in the private rented sector, and that consequently this winter homelessness and evictions will increase? Have the Government done an impact assessment of that decision? More importantly, will they now consider a temporary ban on no-fault evictions, as happened during the pandemic?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As I think I have answered at this Dispatch Box, we are looking at Section 21 evictions, and we will certainly bring forward the private renters Bill in this Parliament. As for doing more to help people, we have done a huge amount as a Government. In the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor offered £26 billion more in support for people across this country, added to the energy price guarantee that was already there. Then there is the council tax rebate. The result is that 8 million more vulnerable people will receive support of at least £1,200 this year. I do not know of an impact assessment regarding the HCA, but I will certainly find out if we have done one. Of course we will keep it under review; that is what we would continue to do at any time.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, to follow up on the noble Baroness’s question, we have heard that hard-pressed tenants are facing rent increases and people are really worried about affording their homes, particularly this winter. The Minister has mentioned the renters reform Bill. It is really important that we see that soon, so can she say when we are actually going to see it?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I cannot say exactly when, but it remains the top priority for this Government, as I have mentioned many times before. We will bring forward that important legislation as soon as we can within this Parliament.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, looking to the longer term, it is clear that there is a shortage of housing across the economy, particularly social housing. We have trillions invested in pension funds. Rather than the leveraged LDI products, would it not be sensible for the Government to facilitate and encourage more investment by pension funds in social housing, which can deliver a reliable income as well as benefiting the housing supply over the longer term?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend brings up a very interesting point. I have looked at that in the past from a local authority point of view. I will certainly take that point back and would like to talk to her more about it.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, leaseholders living in blocks that are under 11 metres are also at risk of losing their homes. They were excluded by the Building Safety Act from any grants for remediation for cladding and building safety works. The Minister has received from me a lot of emails from desperate leaseholders looking to the Government for support and help, to ensure that they do not have to fund the developers’ problems that were caused. They are at risk of losing their homes because of the high costs of cladding removal. Can the Minister now tell us what she and the Government intend to do to help these desperate leaseholders?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am fully aware of the noble Baroness’s concerns about this issue. I have a large group of documents from her and am working my way through those with officials. I will come back to her to discuss it fully, as soon as I possibly can in the new year.
Streptococcus A: Antibiotics
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address reported shortages of supplies of antibiotics, given the increase in cases of Streptococcus A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
We are working at pace with manufacturers and wholesalers to expedite deliveries, bring forward stock and boost supply. UKHSA and the NHS are co-ordinating communication to healthcare professionals, including advice on using alternative effective medicines as necessary to ease pressure on supply. Early treatment is vital, so in addition to bolstering supply we are providing information to parents to understand the trigger points for urgent referrals.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but despite Ministers saying that there is no problem—the Health Secretary has said that—worried parents across the country are going from pharmacy to pharmacy to seek the antibiotics their children need. Can the Minister update your Lordships’ House on the improvements in availability since the Health Secretary said, as in the statement repeated this morning, that he was
“working urgently with manufacturers and wholesalers to explore what can be done to expedite deliveries”?
Further, are there any plans within DHSC to update the concessionary price for amoxycillin and penicillin, so that pharmacies do not have to foot the bill for the rapid increase in costs they are experiencing?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for bringing this important matter to us all. Yes, they are working very strongly; I had a series of meetings yesterday on this very subject to go through all they are doing on the supply front. Importantly, as we speak, they are putting out advice to medics about suitable alternative antibiotics that can also be used in this case. I am satisfied that they are doing everything they can towards this. Clearly, where there are price problems such as those the noble Baroness mentions, we will also act in that area.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the cost of producing strep A antibiotics has not changed but the selling price has rocketed in recent weeks from 80 pence to £19 per packet, mainly because of profiteering by companies. Will the Minister launch a publicly owned company to manufacture generic drugs, which would provide jobs and exports, secure long-term supplies, protect the NHS budget and end the profiteering by drug companies? Does he have any objections to that?
Lord Markham (Con)
My general thinking—this is a personal view—is that the market is normally very well placed to supply these things. There was the excellent example of the vaccines, whereby it acted incredibly quickly and got Covid vaccines out as necessary. I think we are always better placed using the strength of the whole market and looking to international suppliers as well. They are always going to be able to provide the necessary medicine to a quicker timescale than our own company would.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, since the risk of invasive group A streptococcal infection is increased in the presence of other viral infections—any of them; it could even be chickenpox in children—what guidance are the Government giving to all schools on public health measures to decrease cross-infection between children and ensure parents are encouraged to keep those who might be unwell away from school, rather than sending them to school, as is the tendency, because of attendance registers?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is correct; it is the coincidence of more than one condition, particularly respiratory conditions, which causes the more extreme cases. The advice is definitely to keep children away from school if there is any question on that at all, especially as we are about to enter a period of school holidays. It is very much the view of the experts that the school holidays should flatten the curve of infections. I should also say at this point that while we are all quite correctly concerned about this, and doing everything we can regarding supply, the current levels are still lower than those we saw in 2017-18, when March and April had the normal peaks of around 2,000 a week. We are currently at around 1,200 cases a week and, as I say, we expect that to flatten out a bit with the firebreak, so to speak, of the Christmas holidays.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as someone on a six-day lockdown and on intermittent antibiotics to deal with a lung condition following surgery, can I suggest, on these shortages, that guidance on antibiotics such as amoxicillin should be updated to allow for greater flexibility of expiry dates? There is too much wastage, and with careful prescription advice and labelling, antibiotics can have a far longer shelf life before deteriorating. Rigid advice on packaging should be relaxed in favour of more flexible expiry dates, as current advice only serves the manufacturers, who sell more.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and I agree. We are looking at every sensible measure we can to ensure we have the greatest flexibility of supply. Expiry dates are clearly one thing we can look at, and I will take that back to the department. I wish the noble Lord well and hope that he feels better soon.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, community pharmacies in Northern Ireland were warning back in October of serious problems with the supply and pricing of a range of drugs. While it is welcome that there now appear to be investigations into the wholesale supply chain for antibiotics, may I also urge the Minister to look at whether there were missed opportunities for earlier intervention?
Lord Markham (Con)
Absolutely—clearly, we always need to learn in such circumstances, so we will be happy to do that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest with the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. Can my noble friend give reassurance that dispensing doctors, pharmacists and others will be reimbursed for the full cost of the increased price of antibiotics?
Lord Markham (Con)
My understanding is that there are measures in place to ensure that the people supplying in those circumstances are not losing out because of profiteering. The most essential message today is that that supply is available to anyone who needs it, so I will take that back.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, is it the manufacturers in the pharmaceutical industry or the wholesalers—the middlemen—who are making the profits? What mechanisms are available to clamp down on them?
Lord Markham (Con)
The key mechanisms always involve broadening the supply chain. I have given exactly that instruction to the department, which is very much taking it on board. It is looking at supply across a number of sources, not just from the UK but worldwide, as well as the substitution of antibiotics. Penicillin is currently the advised one, but a number of others are being advised right now which will also work well, so that there is as much choice as possible.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that, while some people are making profits, 16 children under the age of 15 have died as a result of strep A. Exactly what advice is being given to GPs so that parents have direct access to them very quickly? Of course, there is also a concern about antibacterial resistance as a result of overprescribing antibiotics.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend and will take this opportunity to offer that public health advice. A rash, which is often the first sign of a bacterial infection in this case, or a child being floppy, drowsy or dehydrated are all key signs that they should urgently seek medical help. People can call 111 or 999 and be guided through the triaging process to make sure that they get help quickly. At the same time, medics have been told to lower the barrier for prescribing, so to speak, so that they can make sure that people get it early. Although every death is a tragedy, we are clearly now seeing some reduction in the death rate, which is welcome.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, while many pharmacies are being forced to sell the antibiotics they can get their hands on at a considerable loss, as wholesale prices soar, the Government have been saying that no company should be using this as an opportunity to exploit the NHS. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government have learned from previous mistakes with procurement and are taking measures to ensure that no company profits unduly from the increased demand for medication?
Lord Markham (Con)
As I mentioned, no one wants to see profiteering in these sorts of situations. The absolute focus right now is on expanding supply, because that is clearly the first thing you need to do. But you then absolutely need to learn lessons and see that appropriate action is taken against companies doing that.
Business of the House
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liaison Committee
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the Select Committee New committee activity in 2023 (3rd Report, HL Paper 104) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
At the start of this year, the House appointed three special inquiry committees, on adult social care, land use in England, and the Fraud Act 2006 and digital fraud. A post-legislative scrutiny committee was also appointed to examine the Children and Families Act 2014. All of these committees have now published their reports, and I thank all Members who contributed to those inquiries and indeed to all of our committee work during the year. I also place on record my thanks to the staff who supported the work of your Lordships’ Select Committees this year.
Turning to the proposed committees for next year, the Liaison Committee received 20 high-quality suggestions from noble Lords, illustrating the range of interest and expertise across the House. All of these proposals have been published on the committee’s website. As ever, the Liaison Committee faced a difficult task. We assessed the proposals against our published criteria, which are that a committee should
“make best use of the knowledge and experience of Members”,
“complement the work” of Commons committees, address areas of policy that “cross departmental boundaries” and be capable of being completed within a year. We also took into account wider factors, such as the overall balance of topics selected and work being undertaken by other Lords committees and within government.
As our report sets out, we decided to propose four special inquiry committees: on the
“Integration of primary and community care”,
for which the lead proposer was the noble Lord, Lord Patel; on
“Education for 11-16 year olds”,
with reference to the skills necessary for the digital and green economy, for which the lead proposer was the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking; on the “Horticultural sector”, for which the lead proposer was the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes; and on the
“Use of artificial intelligence in weapon systems”,
for which the lead proposer was the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I hope that noble Lords agree that the committee’s recommendations cover a wide range of subjects, will make excellent use of Members’ backgrounds, and will contribute to debate and policy-making in a range of topical and cross-cutting areas.
Because of the strength of the proposals for special inquiries this year, the committee has decided to recommend that the available allocation of four Select Committees should all be undertaken with special inquiries. This means that we have decided not to propose a post-legislative scrutiny committee for the coming year. The Liaison Committee has recommended this on occasions in the past. However, I reassure noble Lords that post-legislative scrutiny, an area where the House has established a strong reputation over the past decade, remains an important field of activity. With that said, I am pleased to recommend these four special inquiry committees to your Lordships. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I believe I first have to say, “The Question is that this Motion be agreed to”. Actually, the noble Lord is right—he should come in now.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
That is the first time that anyone has admitted that I am right. It is a red-letter day, and it could not have come from a better person than my friend the noble Lord, Lord Duncan.
As the Senior Deputy Speaker will know, I sometimes get concerned that there is a tendency to forget that this Parliament represents the whole of the United Kingdom, not just England. There could be a danger that, in two of these topics in particular, the consideration might cover just England. Can the Liaison Committee or the Senior Deputy Speaker give the House some assurance that advice will be given to the members of the Select Committees, to the clerks and to others, that they should take account of the situation in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland as well as England before making their reports? Otherwise, they will not reflect our responsibilities as part of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
The noble Lord makes a very important point. Obviously, these matters come under our consideration. If there are areas where there is devolved policy-making, we are very keen that part of the consideration by the special inquiries is on what is happening in other parts of the United Kingdom. If there were a situation where a policy had a devolved arrangement for all of the Parliaments or a number of them, we would be keen—this is part of our suggestion and strong advice—for that always to be kept in mind. I can definitely reassure the noble Lord today, but it is useful for him to have put it like that, as a constant reminder that we are a United Kingdom and our discourse is on that basis. If there are no further questions—
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I understand that we will not have any post-legislative scrutiny committees this year. Learning from our mistakes is one of the most important things that we can do when things have not gone as well as we wished. Could my noble friend the Senior Deputy Speaker explain why we felt on this occasion that there were no lessons to be learned?
Lord Cormack (Con)
I wish to add to that, because my noble friend has made a very important point, and one that I was going to seek to make anyway. Should it not be almost automatic that all major Bills of a highly contentious nature—we have had a number of them this year—should be subject to a degree of post-legislative scrutiny? I fear for many of these Bills and their impact. Your Lordships’ House has a wonderful record of post-legislative scrutiny, as my noble friend the Senior Deputy Speaker said in his opening remarks, and we should try to move to a situation where it is an automatic follow-through for all major Bills—not necessarily in the year after a Bill has been passed but within a cycle of five years, at the very outside.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, further to those last two interventions, can I say what a privilege it was to chair the post-legislative scrutiny committee on the Licensing Act 2003 and to have a follow-up inquiry as well? My noble friend the Senior Deputy Speaker is aware of the backlog for debating these. In recognising the importance that my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts has specified, I think it is extremely important for the whole House to have the opportunity to debate these issues at an opportune moment.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, I have sat on the Children and Families Act post-legislative scrutiny committee this year, and one of our findings was that the committee taking eight years to sit was rather too long. I concur with my noble friends that we should try as often as possible to have a post-legislative scrutiny committee every year.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Again, my Lords, that is very helpful feedback. As I say, the Liaison Committee did consider this matter—I want to say this categorically, because we usually have a post-legislative scrutiny committee, but on this occasion we thought we should suggest to the House these other four committees. Last year, we had not only post-legislative scrutiny in its entirety but the post-legislative scrutiny of the Fraud Act 2006, alongside a very excellent special inquiry on fraud.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that I am working extremely strongly with the Government Chief Whip and other offices to ensure that we get as many opportunities as possible for debates in the Chamber and Grand Committee. I am very pleased that we have five debates on Select Committee reports in Forthcoming Business. Obviously, I am looking for more, and I have the sympathy of the Government Chief Whip. I assure your Lordships that I place great importance on the consideration of these reports in either the Chamber or Grand Committee. With those considerations and very important points, I beg to move.
Official Development Assistance
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
That this House takes note of His Majesty’s Government’s approach to Official Development Assistance spending.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, as noble Lords may know, this debate was tabled by my noble friend Lady Northover. Unfortunately, she has suffered a close family bereavement and is unable to be here. She has asked me to take over the debate, which I am honoured to do. I am sure noble Lords will want to join me in offering condolences to my noble friend. Before I start, I draw attention to my entry in the register as an adviser to DAI, chair of Water Unite, president of the Caribbean Council and mentor with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.
Many noble Lords will know that between 2005 and 2015, I had the privilege and honour to chair the International Development Committee in the House of Commons. By 2005, since the creation of DfID by Labour in 1997 and the passing of the International Development Act 2002, which untied aid and focused on poverty reduction, prioritising the poorest people in the poorest countries, the UK had emerged as perhaps the world’s leading donor—not totally in cash terms but in terms of focus and impact. Between 2005 and 2010, Ministers such as Hilary Benn and Douglas Alexander provided leadership among other donors, persuading them to step up to the plate as the UK moved, albeit a bit erratically, towards delivering 0.7% of GNI in official development assistance. Indeed, I remember being in my car one Friday when I got a message from Douglas Alexander. He was ringing me only to say how excited he was that he had persuaded the Italian Government to dramatically increase their contribution to the World Food Programme. That is just an example of our Ministers persuading others to do the right thing.
Throughout that time and, indeed, the whole time I was there, the International Development Committee engaged with the World Bank, regional development banks, United Nations agencies, the European Commission and other donors. The important point for noble Lords to note is that, in all cases, the UK was regarded with respect and admiration not only for the level of our development assistance but for its focus on what made a difference in reducing poverty and building capacity.
DfID did not just provide first aid and essential humanitarian relief; multilaterally and bilaterally, it advocated and supported programmes which made a difference. If poverty reduction was or is to be sustained, people need access to clean water and safe sanitation; health systems need to be established and sustained; girls and women need access to education and to reproductive health, including family planning, assistance during childbirth and safe abortion; and there needs to be an end to child marriage and female genital mutilation. DfID also supported effective cash transfer schemes, because the poorest people use the cash for essential items—namely, food, healthcare and education—something which, I regret to say, the Daily Mail never seemed to understand. Of course, all this is delivered with the consent of the Governments of the countries where the programmes are happening. Yes, we all know that poor governance and corruption are a challenge for development, but they cannot be a cover for not delivering to poor people, who, after all, are not to blame but are in need.
Our committee travelled all over Africa and south Asia to see for ourselves the impact of UK aid and development, and we were always looking for what worked, what could be scaled up and what could be transferred. We found some problems and identified some improvements but, overall, the committee was extremely proud of the UK’s achievements and the communities’ appreciation for its transformational impact. I was especially proud that during the coalition Government, the UK achieved official development assistance spending of 0.7% of GNI and that the Liberal Democrats, supported by the entire coalition Government, enshrined it in legislation which is still on the statute book and still applies.
Andrew Mitchell—who I had worked with throughout the 2005-10 Parliament, when he shadowed the department—proved a dynamic and reforming Minister when he came into the coalition Government as Secretary of State. He instituted three critical reviews of multilateral, bilateral and humanitarian aid. The latter was chaired by the late Lord Ashdown—Paddy. International agencies were uncomfortable with the questions DfID was asking them, but they respected the UK’s leadership and they engaged. That is important: not every donor could have had that impact on agencies at that level.
Andrew Mitchell created the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. Interestingly, he set it up to ensure that it reported to and through the International Development Committee, not to Ministers. It was modelled—this was definitely his idea—in a similar way to the Public Accounts Committee. He also reformed the CDC, paving the way for it to become British Investment International. The committee engaged positively with all these radical reforms, as well as pursuing our own priorities, such as ensuring that DfID built a disability focus into its work. That was followed through by my noble friend Lady Featherstone, who was an excellent junior Minister—as was her successor, my noble friend Lady Northover, who initiated this debate, as I have said, and is sad not to be here. This experience proved—this is an important point—that all the major parties could bring their strengths to bear to deliver a truly world-beating aid and development programme. Andrew Mitchell described the UK as a “development superpower”. It is not a term I would personally use, but I understand what he means. I can testify that we provided a role model to the world, respected by our donor peers and the beneficiaries.
Like many, I am shocked and appalled at how this reputation and capacity, built up by successive Governments of all parties, have been brought crashing down by an act of simple, crass vandalism. This has meant that people who might have lived have died. Those who have been lifted out of poverty have fallen back, and others who had the prospect of improved lives have seen their hopes dashed away. Sudden cuts on this scale have real and devastating consequences for ordinary people living on the brink. This, it transpired, is because of an unbudgeted surge in Home Office spending on refugees, chiefly Ukrainian and Afghan.
UK aid and development assistance has been the most visible manifestation of our soft power as a nation. But the British Council and the BBC World Service are essential to our positive impact, generating respect and engagement with the UK in cultural, political and economic terms, yet the ODA dimension of these is also being cut. The World Service is 75% funded by the licence fee, but the licence fee has been frozen. The impact of the Word Service has increased, not diminished, in recent years, and is more important than ever in the wake of the war in Ukraine and an increasingly hawkish China. If this is to be maintained, these services will require at least ad hoc additional spending, not funded by cuts elsewhere.
I argue that the case for restoring 0.7%, with these pressures, is surely in the national interest now and not subject to the overall economy. Underfunding our soft power only further undermines our weakened international reputation.
So what has happened? We have seen the merger of DfID and the FCO, which was done in such a cack-handed way that years and years of capacity was lost; it dissipated or, in Andrew Mitchell’s words, it “vapourised”. The dysfunctionality meant that nobody really knew who was making decisions, nobody knew who they could turn to, decisions were not being made, offers were not being followed through and programmes were being cut.
As of now, we need to recognise that our capacity to deliver world-class aid and development does not exist in the way that it did prior to these decisions. We have to recognise that the consequences of the merger, of cutting from 0.7% to 0.5% and of uncontrolled spending outside the development budget on refugees have made our ability to deliver the kind of aid and development that people have expected in the UK almost impossible.
If we are going to rebuild our reputation—it will take time to do so—I hope that the disasters of the last few years have come to an end. The appointment of Andrew Mitchell as Minister for Development and attending Cabinet is surely welcome. He has made it clear that he wants to refocus aid spending. He points out that the UK’s reputation as a leader was achieved when we were spending 0.5% and so it is not as though we cannot do good things with the money that we have got—but we could do a lot better with more.
However, if we are to build back our leadership, it will take time, because it has been thrown away so ruthlessly. It will require rebuilding discrete development capacity within the FCDO—I think this is really important, and I will repeat this in a question to the Minister. Of course there can be cross-fertilisation between diplomacy and development—there is nothing wrong with that; it is a good thing and it should happen—but there needs to be recognition that they are different and require different skill sets. Aid spend is about the benefit of the recipients, not simply UK commercial or political interests.
The needs of refugees here at home of course qualify for ODA, and they must be met, but this surely cannot be open-ended in its impact on development spend. The Chancellor has gone some way to acknowledge this; he has allowed ODA to rise this year to 0.55% because of that call. If ODA were to rise immediately to 0.7%, maybe we could rebuild and deliver the refugee priorities, as well as restructure our capacity. But in its absence, the Government must set out what can be spent on development.
It was a shock in the summer to find that billions of pounds that nobody knew about had suddenly been siphoned away from development to support a refugee crisis. Nobody denies the refugees’ needs and nobody denies that they qualify for ODA, but a lot of people would ask how you can have any kind of coherent development spend if it can be siphoned off at short notice without anybody’s knowledge or control.
It surely cannot be right that the needs of refugees are funded at the expense of poor people in Africa and Asia who are facing climate change, conflict and disease. Other countries have recognised that and have raised their aid spend to meet refugee needs. We should do the same. I acknowledge that the Chancellor has done a bit, but it does not go far enough.
I have reminded the House previously that the Chancellor was of course a member of the International Development Committee in his first Parliament. I believe that he genuinely understands all this, and I understand his difficulties, but I hope that the team in place now not only understands but will work to deliver what it knows can be done.
It is important to understand that the UK model depends on working with development contractors. The department does not do it itself; it does it through partners. It provides the budget, framework and commissioning, but those partners help to deliver the programmes. Those partners have also had to take painful decisions, tell people that programmes no longer exist, and let people go and let people down. Such a model is cost-effective and flexible, but all partners have seen contracts and programmes cut in mid-flow. Frankly, the uncertainty makes it pretty difficult to deliver any effective programmes.
Many experienced and talented people have left the sector—there is no use in denying this—whether within government or among the development partners. Our capacity to rebuild is compromised, and will be further, if we cannot provide predictability in delivery in the future. I am advised that partners are being asked to bid for programmes with smaller contracts, greater detail than ever before and more bureaucracy, and they are not being awarded anyway. That does not leave anybody with any confidence as to how we can deliver on the ground.
I have seen for myself, as many other noble Lords will have, how well-planned and sustained development programmes work on the ground and deliver long-term reductions in poverty and long-term changes to capacity within affected countries and communities. This is how sustainable, long-term development created the partnerships that can deliver the SDGs, lift people permanently out of poverty and be transformational. That is what the UK used to be great at. We used to be leaders, and we must aspire to be so again.
Others on these Benches and elsewhere will no doubt highlight the challenges facing different areas of development and different geographical concerns, relating to their own personal experience or knowledge. However, I hope that the era of damage and destruction to what was our offer is over. I used to be genuinely proud of the UK’s standing and achievements on international development. I urge the Government to take the steps that can make me and millions of others proud again.
I ask the Minister: will the Government ensure that we rebuild discrete development delivery capacity and expertise within the FCDO? Will the Government ensure that a core part of development is identified and protected from short-term chops and changes, therefore allowing sustainable programmes that the delivery agencies, beneficiaries and partners can all have confidence in and can deliver?
In my view, we have been through a shameful trashing of a world-class achievement by this country. That has to end. We have a team in place now that has knowledge and understanding, and some credibility. I urge the Minister, as I believe other Members of the House will urge likewise, to pass on to that team that we expect that reputation to be rebuilt—starting now.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, it is a huge privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie. I first heard him speak more than 30 years ago, when he was president of the Scottish Liberal Democrats and I was an undergraduate. He was then, as now, detailed, good-humoured and generous to opponents, as he is in all his interventions.
I feel, looking at who is speaking after me, that it will probably fall to me to point out that there is an alternative case—a counterargument that was best expressed by the great American economist Thomas Sowell. Foreign aid, if badly done, can provide perverse incentives. You end up rewarding countries that are doing the wrong thing and ceasing to reward countries that are doing the right thing. Foreign aid, if badly done, becomes an alternative revenue stream, so that a Government do not need to raise money through taxation, and this can lead to bad democratic as well as bad economic outcomes. There are numerous surveys comparing countries in receipt of aid and not, and the same country in times when it was and was not, that show that there can be these negative correlations.
None of this, however, is an argument against foreign aid: it is an argument against doing it wrongly, or without proper concentration on the outcomes. There is a general argument against feeling that you are doing the right thing if you put a fiver into every outstretched hat without thinking through exactly where it is going. To take the most uncontroversial aspects, I think we can all agree that Governments have an important role to play in disaster relief: the capacity of many countries is simply not up to dealing with extraordinary catastrophes that are not budgeted for normally. But Governments also have an important role to play in doing the things—the unsexy things, if you like—that charities will struggle to raise the money for. There is a lot to be said, for example, for improving infrastructure, but that is a much harder thing to raise money for from the general population than clinics, schools or whatever.
We, the UK, are doing quite a lot of good work in Africa. DfID is funding a lot of schemes on practically removing trade barriers at borders; dealing not with the treaties but with the actual implementation, so that we increase the flow of goods across borders, which is of course an incredibly important poverty alleviation mechanism but one that no charity is going to be able to make a big appeal out of. So let us all agree—the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, put it very well—that we have refocused on areas that are more important and where we get, if you like, more bang for our buck. There was a particular move, during the coalition years that he referred to, away from funding organisations that spent a lot of money on advocacy and trying to refocus them on spending money on getting actual product on the ground in the places where they were delivering. I think that was the right thing to do: there was a certain dishonesty involved with some organisations that would raise money, saying, “We are going to provide farm tools for a family in Zimbabwe”, or whatever, and then the bulk of their budget would go on lobbying operations in London.
So, we have already done a number of good things. We are becoming more focused and it is possible to get a great deal out of limited budgets. But where I have a problem—I am afraid I am going to make myself incredibly unpopular, not for the first time, as I say this—is with the idea of setting arbitrary budgetary targets, whether for overseas aid or for any other aspect of government spending. First, I think it is always a bad idea to judge one’s policy in terms of cost rather than outcome. This is true whether it is a local council budget or a Whitehall department. There is a lamentable tendency, which carries on under this Conservative Government, to boast about the fact that we are spending £200 million on X or Y, rather than looking at what we are doing with it. That also creates perverse incentives.
There is a deeper problem, and it is the democratic one. It may very well be desirable to spend 0.7% of GDP on international assistance; it may very well be desirable to spend 2% of GDP on defence, as the NATO alliance demands; but if those things are true, why is it not equally desirable to spend whatever arbitrary figure we come up with on education, on healthcare or on policing? At which point, what is the point of having general elections? Democracy is about the arbitration of competing goals. It is not our job in this Chamber, but I argue that it is the primary job of the other place. There are clashing interests, people who have perfectly good arguments for why they need more money, there is not a magic wand or a magic money tree, and it is the role of elected representatives to decide on the most equitable outcome. If all that is lifted out of the democratic process and set in stone in statute—or even, as Gordon Brown now suggests, in a constitutional settlement that would guarantee a certain amount of health spending, or whatever—there is precious little point in people voting at all.
We did, indeed, show leadership, whether or not we use the phrase “superpower in foreign aid”, but I think we also have historically shown leadership as a democracy. We have held up an example of a free, open society in which leaders are answerable to the wider population. We have shown that that model works and people around the world have chosen to mimic it. For that reason, if for no other, we should be very careful about abandoning the principle that taxes should not be raised except by elected representatives.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for enabling us to focus on this important subject. In 2020, the Government decided to reduce our ODA spending to 0.5% of GNI, down from the hard-won UN target of 0.7%. This has had a hugely damaging impact on critical aid and development programmes. The outcry at the time was widespread and has not abated. The noble Lord set out the damage vividly. In my view—and I say this with great regret—the Government’s recent approach to international aid and development is shameful. The list of global humanitarian crises continues to grow. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the appalling flooding in Pakistan and the food crisis in the Horn of Africa have all added to existing challenges arising from conflict, climate change and Covid-19. Yet, as the humanitarian need grows, our approach is to cut our funding and take steps back from our global responsibilities—indeed, our global promise—to help the world’s most vulnerable people.
A reduction in our aid spending of £3 billion, 21%, in the space of a year from 2020 to 2021, undermines any aspirations the UK might have had to be a leader in global development. Yesterday, on the “Today” programme, David Miliband of the International Rescue Committee referred to the swingeing budget cuts and quoted Andrew Mitchell, Minister of State for International Development, saying that Britain is no longer an aid superpower, and the price is being paid by the poorest people in the world. Not only is supporting the world’s poorest the right thing to do, but our global standing is boosted by strong leadership in this area. Cutting our aid budget does reputational damage to the UK, diminishes our international standing and, I believe, signals a retreat from the world stage.
In 2020, only Germany spent more than us on aid in both absolute and proportional terms. With the reduction to 0.5%, the UK slipped from sixth in the world in terms of aid as a percentage of GNI to ninth in 2021. It took long years of work to reach the target of 2013, which was proudly supported by the then Chancellor, George Osborne, who called it a historic achievement. But by 2020 our promise to the world’s poorest had been broken, and in 2021, hosting refugees in the UK had become the biggest sector for ODA spending, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said. Last year, more than £1 billion, or 14% of the bilateral aid budget, went on UK refugee costs, in contrast to the £743 million going to humanitarian aid. I understand that using ODA in this way is accepted by the OECD Development Assistance Committee, but no other G7 country is using its aid budget for this purpose. The knock-on effect for other essential programmes funded by the reduced ODA budget is severe. We must, of course, support refugees, but, as Oxfam points out, surely not at the expense of life-saving humanitarian aid or development projects that reduce poverty and help prevent the very crises that can cause forced displacement.
How much further will we fall in our global responsibilities and international standing? I am fearful that this temporary reduction in ODA spending to 0.5% of GNI will become permanent. I am neither an economist nor a fiscal expert, so I have grappled with the detail of the two conditions set out earlier this year that have to be met before the UK will return to the 0.7% target. Can the Minister tell us how often those two conditions have been met in recent years? I fear that we are setting the bar so high that it makes the target impossible to achieve, but is this the intention? Will he expand on what the “sustainable basis” for these conditions might look like? This phrase is surely open to wide interpretation.
I briefly mentioned the impact of the ODA cuts to critical aid and development programmes. What has not been given as much attention is the direct damage the cuts will do to research institutions, scientists and researchers in DAC countries and to the people in low-income countries whom the ODA research funding is intended to benefit. The outcry over the ODA cuts from research institutions and scientific societies acknowledges the damage they will do to progressing life-saving and health-promoting programmes.
For the UK, our reputation as a global funder and major contributor to science and human development is at stake. I have a continued interest as the former CEO of Universities UK when we set up an international unit to help UK universities build sustainable relationships with international institutions, researchers, students and partners. While our universities recognise that ODA funding exists primarily to benefit other countries, ODA funding has become an integral part of university research and global or international strategies. It has helped drive universities’ commitments to meeting the UN sustainable development goals, by embedding them within institutional research strategies. The UUK International report last year said that ODA had
“contributed to the university ecosystem and global reputation, and changed the way international research is conducted.”
The Global Challenges Research Fund and the Newton Fund are both recipients of ODA money, and have enabled UK universities to, for example, play key roles in efforts to develop renewable energy and clean water technology; improve worldwide labour laws; and roll out 5G networks in lower- and middle-income countries. In 2021, ODA-funded projects enabled UK universities to support the national effort against Covid-19, through enhanced virus-detection technology. ODA funding has enabled UK universities to deliver projects that have improved the lives of millions around the world. UUKi has said that cuts to the ODA spend on the scale announced will “severely limit” UK universities’ ability to tackle global challenges and are likely to lead to
“the termination of existing and future research projects, damaging the sector’s international standing and reducing its capacity to drive economic growth and prosperity in the UK.”
In July 2020, the then FCDO Minister in the other place asserted that
“being a global force for good”
was
“at the heart of the UK’s foreign policy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/20; col. 1200.]
Given the direction of ODA spending, what assurance can the Minister give us that this is still the case?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie on his excellent, thoughtful and comprehensive opening speech, and my noble friend Lady Northover on securing this timely and extremely important debate. I refer noble Lords to my register of interests, my development assistance work and my role in the Global TB Caucus.
As my noble friend Lord Bruce said so powerfully, it is greatly to be regretted that the cross-party consensus that existed for over a decade in achieving the UN target of 0.7% has broken down, for what I sincerely hope will be a short and temporary period only. I agree with Andrew Mitchell when he said that the UK has lost its reputation as a “development superpower”. As noble Lords have said, the cuts to the overseas aid budget have already had a deeply damaging impact in so many countries. I was extremely proud to work in 2015 with my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed on the Bill that enshrined the commitment to 0.7%, and to work closely with the noble Baronesses, Lady Jenkin and Lady Sugg, the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord McConnell, and various others, on ensuring a genuinely cross-party approach to development assistance.
In my remaining remarks today, I will concentrate on the importance of focusing on the long term—however difficult in our current economic circumstances—and learning lessons from Covid in terms of global public health. Effective international co-operation through Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, has been one of the development assistance success stories, and the UK’s continuing positive role within Gavi is to be commended.
In the last three years, we have all learned that an airborne pathogen on the other side of the world can, very quickly, have severe consequences for all of us. The first recorded cases of Covid-19 happened to be in China, a country with very strong surveillance systems, including on public health. However, at the outset of the Covid pandemic, only two countries in had the capacity to diagnose Covid-19. Where the next pandemic develops is just as important as what the next pandemic is. The only sure way to prevent the next pandemic is to make sure that there are at least basic healthcare systems to care for and prevent respiratory diseases in every part of the world.
The UK has been for decades an active participant in conversations around global health security, including the global response to antimicrobial resistance. What we have not done, however, is focus seriously on the airborne pathogen that is already killing more people than any other disease; namely, tuberculosis. Some 1.5 million people died of this curable disease in 2020. According to the WHO, Covid-19 has set back the fight against TB by as much as a decade. To quote from the WHO’s report:
“In 2020, more people died from TB, with far fewer people being diagnosed and treated or provided with TB preventive treatment compared with 2019, and overall spending on essential TB services falling … In many countries, human, financial and other resources have been reallocated from tackling TB to the COVID-19 response, limiting the availability of essential services … people have struggled to seek care in the context of lockdowns.”
Concentrating now on a stronger global TB response makes long-term sense. Measures include training more doctors, providing more diagnostic machines, assisting community groups doing outreach and awareness raising, and providing well-equipped respiratory wards, academics, and even oxygen. Can the Minister say whether the Government would support a comprehensive review into how enhanced investments in the global fight against TB could support the response to future pandemics?
In addition to the impact of Covid, one of the many tragic consequences of the truly awful war in Ukraine has been to set back the fight against multi-drug-resistant TB in Ukraine as well as in the wider region. Can the Minister say whether there are plans to give Ukraine additional support in the area of public health, and in particular in the fight against multi-drug-resistant TB?
Ebola is another prime example where a longer-term approach taken by Governments would make sense. When there is an outbreak of a disease, there is a race to find a vaccine, as we have seen with Covid, but then when the outbreak recedes, so does the urgency. This frequently reflects a desire by Governments to save money in the short term, which all too often results in paying more later. When a vaccine has been developed, as in the case of Ebola Zaire, it is often not seen as a priority to make sure that it is deployed. We know that an outbreak of Ebola Zaire could happen at any moment. When there was an outbreak in 2014, it cost west Africa $50 billion, and yet countries still cannot access the vaccine that exists.
If Covid has taught us one thing, it is that we are not safe just because we are far away. It surely makes sense to make Ebola vaccines widely available now. Can the Minister say whether the Government will press the WHO to accelerate the development of its guidelines for deploying Ebola Zaire vaccines? Will the Government outline their support for the development of an Ebola Sudan vaccine? There is a very real risk that without a global, publicly funded strategy, the market will fail to deliver vaccines to stop pandemics before they surge. I appreciate that these are quite technical questions, and if the Minister is unable to give a comprehensive reply in his closing remarks, I would be very happy to receive a letter after the debate.
To conclude, I stress again that I hope we return as soon as possible to the commitment to 0.7%. But it is not just about more aid, it is about better, more joined-up aid, and a more effective global approach. This issue is in our national interest, in our increasingly interconnected world, but, more importantly, it is also the right thing to do.
Lord Fowler (CB)
I very much agree with what the noble Baroness just said. To start, I will say something which I hope has the unanimous approval of the House: it is very good to see Andrew Mitchell back in the Government as Minister for Development. He did so much in the past, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned, and we look forward to what he will contribute in future. In all conscience, he has inherited a very difficult position.
I am sure that there will be an array of financial numbers of one kind or another in this debate. They are very important but, crucial as they are, I would like to concentrate on some of the casualties that the world is suffering from our failure to meet global health challenges. It is a measure that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, might agree to. I declare my interest as an ambassador for UNAIDS but hasten to add that the views I express are very much my own.
I will concentrate on HIV/AIDS because it establishes so much of what is wrong at the moment. AIDS is one of the deadliest pandemics of our time. Some 36 million people have died so far from AIDS. Every minute a life is lost to AIDS. The fallout from Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine has hit the AIDS response worldwide, with the result that progress against the HIV pandemic has stalled. Risks have increased, but resources for the response have reduced. Worst of all, the aim of eliminating HIV as a public health risk by 2030 is very much in doubt. I was in Geneva a week or two ago, talking to the health organisations there, and I am bound to say that there was not much confidence that we would, on present policies, meet that target. One of the problems has been that domestic funding for the HIV response is low. It is low in low-income and middle-income countries and has fallen for two consecutive years. Progress in ensuring that all people living with HIV are accessing life-saving antiretroviral treatment has also stalled. The number of people on HIV treatment grew more slowly in 2021 than it has over a decade.
It is important to mention that there is an important difference between the position today and the position in, for example, the 1980s. In the 1980s we had no medicines and no way of combating HIV. It was, in effect, a death sentence. We obviously used advertising and every other means to warn people. Only yesterday, a man came up to me in this House and thanked me on behalf of a whole range of other people for that advertising, which he said had saved his life. It probably saved many lives, but nothing like the number of lives that can be saved by antiretroviral drugs. The really sad thing is that, although antiretroviral drugs lead to a normal, useful, full life after treatment, we are not using their full potential. That is the real tragedy of the situation. It is so different from where we were before. Then we did not have the means. Now we have the means, but what do we do? We do not use them. That is something that this Government should address.
Another issue is that we have not seen the end, or even the beginning of the end, of the discrimination that has perpetuated this pandemic. Some 68 countries have criminal laws that punish consensual, same-sex relations. There is not a lot that this Government can do in the sense of taking action themselves—I seek to persuade people, when I speak outside this country, that Britain has done a great deal since the really serious days when we followed such policies—but we can take all action possible to combat the position.
One position I would like to raise is the change which has taken place as far as the victims of AIDS are concerned. It used to be the case, and it is still portrayed on television as being the case, that all victims are young men. It is certainly true that in the past the majority of victims were young men; it was tragic to see in the hospitals bed after bed occupied by young men who were going to die. But today we have a situation where women have progressively taken a bigger proportion of the victim total and, most tragically of all, so have small children—100,000 have died in the last 12 months. All those things need to be taken into account.
On current trends, we will miss the United Nations target of ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030. Let us be clear that the result of that will be more AIDS-related deaths and more infection. The real tragedy is that we could face, combat and defeat that. We are a wealthy country; such countries need to remember what is at stake. What is at stake is thousands of deaths and new infections, all preventable. What is at stake is the end of the pandemic or a pandemic which goes on and on. Beating pandemics is ultimately a political challenge. We can end AIDS by 2030, but only if we are bold in our actions and investments. We need courageous political leadership and we need people worldwide to insist that their leaders be courageous.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, for his excellent introduction, which was informed and passionate. I would also like to highlight and underline my deep regret at His Majesty’s Government’s cuts to official development assistance spending.
I find myself in touch weekly with some of the poverty here in our own country as I visit food banks, debt advice centres, or the clubs that some of our churches now run to give breakfast to schoolchildren. I am acutely aware that we have real need here in our own country, but it is of a completely different order compared with what many other countries in the world face. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that we need to spend our aid carefully. It is actually quite difficult to spend large amounts of money. We sometimes find it difficult in this country and sometimes people do not spend it well. Of course we need to work at that, but the answer is not to cut our aid but to make sure that we are using it in the most effective way.
This is not just about long-term development. We are cutting our spending at a time when we are seeing some of the most appalling famines facing our world since the 1980s. I refer in particular to the Horn of Africa, which is experiencing its worst drought in 40 years. Early on, that was compounded by terrible swarms of locusts, which simply devastated the crops, and it has been made even worse by the civil war going on in some of those countries. As a result, more than 50 million people across east Africa are now suffering from acute food insecurity.
This is made even worse because of other diseases. We just heard the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, expand the point about HIV/AIDS brilliantly. Of course, where there is real famine, that disease can be fatal. There are also the well-known—actually, they are not well-known—neglected tropical diseases such as leprosy, rabies, dengue fever and Guinea worm disease. Such diseases are treatable in this country but, in a context where people are suffering from famine, many malnourished people die from them.
In the past, the UK has stepped up to the table when we have faced similar situations. In 2017, the UK spearheaded action that helped avert a famine in east Africa, providing £700 million to the region. However, this year, despite the severe conditions, our commitment to the region has been reduced by £156 million. A few weeks ago, I tabled a series of Written Questions naming each of the main countries in the Horn of Africa and asking what our support in development aid has been over each of the past five years. The Answers made for salutary reading. There have been massive cuts not just to development programmes but to simple aid to save lives. Only 65% of the money allocated has been spent. We need greater certainty to get this money where it is needed. As the crisis is getting worse, we are providing less. We all acknowledge that the current crisis is a global crisis compounded by President Putin’s war in Ukraine and the recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. Yet, in the face of such challenges, some of our neighbouring countries, such as France, Italy and Germany, have increased their ODA commitments, while we reduce ours.
If we are not persuaded that increasing our spending is the right and moral thing to do when whole communities are starving, we just need to look at some of the practical issues around what happens when we withdraw from helping others. In the Central African Republic, Russia and China have been steadily intensifying their efforts across the region. Right now, a Russian Government-linked private military corporation, the Wagner Group, is conducting military operations in Mali—admittedly in west Africa—to secure uranium, gold and diamond contracts to fund the war in Ukraine. How much longer will it be before these and other countries move into east Africa as we withdraw? The catastrophe in Somalia has allowed the nation to become a hotbed of terrorism. Al-Shabaab has been able to recruit more people from among those spurred on by hunger and dissatisfaction with the Government.
So, feeding people who are starving is not just a practical and moral issue. If we are not engaging, we are opening up places to much more unscrupulous Governments and regimes moving in and taking advantage. This is a vital part of our presence on the world scene. Across the world, many nations are jostling to establish themselves as global leaders. The danger is that we are simply withdrawing. Responding to issues at home is of course important—we all need to make cuts in doing so, and cope with the rising cost of energy together—but we cannot do it in a world where the challenges are so much greater. The 0.2% of our GNI is a drop in the ocean when compared with the Government’s borrowing elsewhere. Of course we must be prudent here at home and look after our own poor, but this is neither the time nor the place to cut back on our commitments to the wider world when we face such terrible catastrophes right across the globe.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my declarations in the register of interests: I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Tuberculosis and chair the Global TB Caucus. I will make some general remarks about AIDS and the ODA budget, then some specific ones about the need to tackle tuberculosis as an urgent priority.
First, on the general issue of aid, I am a long-standing supporter of a strong international development programme. I welcomed the increase in the aid budget, although I share some of my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere’s scepticism about arbitrary targets. I recognise the power of aid to do good and, when properly deployed, as an effective instrument of soft power for the UK. I regret the necessity of having to cut back on the aid programme over the past couple of years, for the reasons noble Lords have set out.
However, we must have a note of realism. We have been confronted with two external shocks to our economy: first, the Covid crisis, and latterly, the oil price crisis. It has been necessary for the Government to respond to those with interventions that amount to hundreds of billions of pounds a year, with the consequence that the Government have been forced to increase taxation on people across the country and take very difficult decisions on the levels of domestic budgets going forward. We simply have to recognise that that is the fiscal context. Although it is regrettable that the aid budget has had to be reduced, it is still 0.5% of our GNI, which places us well above OECD countries’ average and, proportionately, is considerably above the level spent by, for instance, the United States of America.
Within that resource, we also have the continuing power to do very great good, as evidenced by the Government’s recent contribution to replenishing the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The level of replenishment the UK provided was not as much as many would have liked; nevertheless, it amounted to £1 billion over the next three years, making us one of the world’s leading contributors. However, the scale of these multilateral programmes presents a problem for the overall aid budget, because the proportion of the budget they take is very high. One consequence of sharply reducing aid spending was that pressure fell on programmes that are not multilateral.
It has not been desirable—nobody could say it has—to see a sharp increase in spending on aid followed by a sharp decrease over the past 10 years. That does not result in money being spent well. In an ideal world, we would see more stable funding for international development. I hope we will be able to return to the previous levels of spending, but we must avoid the trap—again, this was well expressed by my noble friend Lord Hannan—of assuming, simply because we reach what is in the end a relatively arbitrary target, that all is well with the world and with the budget. It behoves us to look carefully at how money is being spent in any government programme, and that includes international aid.
It must also be pointed that there is no government department that is so scrutinised on the impact of spending. One of the important reforms that was introduced by the coalition Government was the introduction of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which undertakes a line-by-line scrutiny of international aid spending. It would be good if we had that across many other departments.
My final point on the overall level of spending on aid is that we need to be careful not to give up on making the case for aid. One of the consequences of locking in spending at the level of 0.7% of GNI was that a kind of assumption was built-in across the political parties that spending would just increase year on year, that it would continue at those very high levels and that it was not necessary to make a political and public case for what was being done. In that sense, the arguments against spending at the levels that were reached crept up on us and on many in the international development world. If we are to return spending to the levels that were previously seen, the case for that has to be made to a public that is looking at all sorts of other areas where they wish public money to be spent and where there are many other priorities. Nevertheless, there is a good case to be made.
I will draw attention to one final area by very strongly echoing what my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said about tuberculosis. I am very proud to work with her globally in the fight against the disease; however, I will not repeat everything she said. Many people believe that there is a vaccine which will help to prevent tuberculosis, but there is not: there is no effective adult vaccine to combat TB. In just the same way that, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, mentioned, the UN sustainable development goal to beat HIV/AIDS in just eight years’ time by 2030 will not be reached, the target to beat tuberculosis will not be reached either. In fact, on the current trajectory, we will not beat tuberculosis for a century. A million and half people die unnecessarily from a treatable and curable disease. That is a very good example of where greater resource that was marshalled carefully could yield very great results, and of where the UK has a very strong role to play in the area of global public health on the research and development necessary to develop new tools and to produce the vaccine that is so desperately needed to combat the disease.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, in her absence, for securing this very important debate at what I always feel is an ideal time of year to reflect on those matters. I send my condolences to her; I am sure that she is very disappointed that she could not be here today, but she had a very able substitute in the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, who teed up the excellent and timely debate. I draw attention to my interests in the register.
First, I will perhaps surprise your Lordships by thanking and congratulating the Prime Minister—not necessarily on his record on international aid but on his appointment of Andrew Mitchell as the new Development Minister. Mr Mitchell and I have had our differences, and we will have more in future, but he understands and is passionate about the subject and was an excellent Secretary of State for International Development when he was previously in post. I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister will build on that initial decision and give both Mr Mitchell and the Foreign Secretary time to sort out the chaos they have inherited, at least until the next election, when perhaps there might be other changes in store.
Having said that, we should never forget the fact that we now have a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who, at the height of a global pandemic, decided to cut our aid budget by 30%. That was a cruel and inhumane act, for which should never be forgotten. It was counterproductive to the interests of the country and to the international efforts to counter the pandemic. While I actually agree with both noble Lords, Lord Hannan and Lord Herbert, on the need to focus on where we spend aid, rather than how much we spend, it is undoubtedly the case that, moving away from a debate on what we spend to a debate on how much we spend, which is where we now are, is counterproductive to effective aid for the United Kingdom. So we need to start on that point. The pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the global migration escalation we have seen in recent years all show just how interdependent our world is today. The polarisation of global relations we have seen in recent years shows just important our soft power is as a country and the influence we are able to exert, not least through our support for official development assistance. That 30% cut, and the distortion of the expenditure by spending so much of the money in this country rather than in other countries around the world, have both showed up an inhumanity. We have damaged the UK’s interests globally and diminished our security as well.
However, I want to concentrate most of my remarks on how we spend aid. I am just as angry at bad spend as I am at the examples of extreme poverty that many of us could share in the Chamber. It is vitally important, if we are going to attack extreme poverty and global injustice, that we are able to ensure that money is invested properly for the long term, sustainably making a real impact. I will briefly highlight four areas on that objective, the first of which is in relation to conflict. When the new Development Minister, Andrew Mitchell, was Secretary of State a decade ago, he and the noble Lord, Lord Hague, set a target for the percentage of our ODA that would be spent on conflict prevention and stabilisation. That was subsequently increased by the Cameron Government in 2015, if I remember rightly, to 50% of the budget being targeted on those vitally important areas for the poorest people in the worst circumstances in the world. So I ask the Minister: what is the target today? Do the Government still have a target and, if they do, what is that target? Will we see a consistent application of expenditure on conflict prevention and stabilisation within our official development assistance?
The second area is climate. I have much sympathy for Alok Sharma in what must have been a terribly difficult job over the past 12 months as president of the climate COP; while all the chaos was happening here in the United Kingdom, he was striving to reach international agreements. Some agreements, however inadequate, have been reached at COP 26 and COP 27. I ask the Minister: how much of our official development assistance will go towards those agreements? How much will we contribute to those just transitions that are important not only to tackle the climate crisis but to ensure development and longer-term prosperity for those countries most affected by the transition that is required.
The third area is capacity. I believe very much in capacity building, rather than just charity, in these situations. The sustainable development goals give us, to use the former Prime Minister’s words, an “oven-ready” deal that we could be using across the world in every country to ensure effective sustainable development. Again, we have all too often, in short-term programming and programming which is about collecting the numbers on how many people might be affected by a vaccine or the provision of school education, missed the fact that we need to build sustainable education and health systems, as well as economies—trade was mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. We need to build those systems and opportunities for the long-term development of sustainable finance and development in country across the global South.
In relation to the SDGs, I have one specific question for the Minister. It is now four or five years—in fact, it was Rory Stewart, four or five Development Secretaries back, who made the presentation—since the UK produced a voluntary national review on the sustainable development goals for presentation to the annual United Nations forum on this, which takes place every July. Can the Minister tell us whether we will do this next year? It is a straightforward question; it would be nice to get a straightforward answer.
My fourth and final point is about consistency. We cannot go on having programmes that are frozen, ended, suspended or cut back to one year when they were going to be three years, as we have seen over the past two or three years. It is deeply damaging to the organisations and the expertise of the staff involved in them, but it is even more damaging to the recipients and the beneficiaries of those development programmes. It is not sustainable development. I would welcome a commitment from the Minister today that we will see a return to three-year-minimum programming, which would allow people to build up properly their development policies and programmes in the future.
I see my time is almost up, so I will finish on this point. A lot of words will be spoken about the messages that are sent to us at this time of year about caring for others and remembering that there are so many in need, at home and abroad. We cannot keep using just words. We must have action, consistently applied over many years, to end these global injustices and to ensure that people have the opportunities and the rights that we take for granted, even in these difficult times, and which others need and deserve as well.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I put my toe rather delicately into this overseas aid pool; it is not one that I usually go to. I do this primarily to give a little commercial for an organisation that I am a trustee of, the Atlas Foundation, a rugby-based charity with a worldwide reach, using rugby as a development tool. I will try to point out how this fits in with some of the wider aspects of the debate, and will make one big ask of the Government at the end that is not directly related to funding.
A sports-based project dealing generally with children is not unknown to people. If you get a gathering of children, usually from poorer backgrounds, and you say here is a sport structure—in this case an egg-shaped ball—and you get them to run around, you will get an easy buy-in. But what keeps them turning up, and often gets them more involved, is feeding programmes. You have people from poor backgrounds getting a structure, role models and feeding, and then we encourage them to go into education. There are so many variations because, although we never intended to be, we are worldwide. It is a fairly safe pattern. Many people from other organisations will have similar objectives. The arts has done it on several occasions, along with other sectors.
I emphasise that this is on the micro level, not the macro level, as my noble friend Lord Bruce talked about at the start. You are helping people to get education, confidence and good role models to survive in the world that they are in, and maybe to make small changes later on. This is not a big driver of change at the moment, not in the way that government funding can be, but by doing this you are making sure that people can get involved.
When I was sitting down and looking through our reports, worrying about how we are going to raise the money for next year and feeling quite pleased with the work that had been done in the past, something caught my eye which I do not think the rest of the board had realised. We get a much better bang for our buck out of the girls. It is with the girls where you really get the improvement. We get lower birth rates from the girls involved. We found from one of our projects in Memphis, Tennessee, that the attitudes of the boys involved towards girls were much better; they regarded them as equals, friends and people on the same terms.
When I looked around more, I found that this was a universal theme. In Kibera, in Kenya, and in Langa, in South Africa, the same things were occurring. The project that says it best is the Khelo project in West Bengal. Here we have managed to get not only lower birth rates but lower child marriage coming through, something that was not looked for down there. High school graduation has gone from 18% to 80%, ensuring that many families have a foundation in their mother—and it is the mother; the male of the species has a bit of catching-up to do.
This is from a sports-based charity. Of late, rugby union has proved itself not to have a male-dominated attitude, but a few years ago many would have looked at me and asked, “Really, you are doing that?” If we encourage girls and women to get involved in sport—I think rugby is the best one but others will disagree—then we will get a good bang for our buck.
What do I want from the Government? I would like more money, but that is a universal theme. A 30% cut will take some clawing back over time. I would like better advice for small charities on how to operate abroad. We have had our successes, but one big success almost became a disaster for us. Atlas has a lovely project, created in Kenya; a mobile classroom with computers on board, and we call it the DigiBus. It is a rugby-based charity and Covid rather scuppered it initially, but what if we take it to South Africa for the Lions tour and it gets damaged in transit? Who do we speak to? How do we replace it? What is the insurance regime? What are the regulatory regimes between Kenya and South Africa? We could give lectures on that now, because we have got the experience. We can also show the bills and the delays.
Will the Government ensure that there is better advice available for those of us in the smaller charity sector who operate around the world? We deal with children, but we do not find out whether there is a universal approach to childcare in these environments. How will we do it? We cannot deliver successfully if we do not get support. I remember once asking some advice from the Foreign Office a few years ago. I was told to telephone somebody in Northern Ireland. After three hours of chasing, I was back to the desk next to them, and they still did not have an answer. We do not know. We are prepared to do our little bit, but we need more guidance.
Referring back to the support for women and girls in the Khelo project, another organisation called SKRUM—it is pronounced “scrum” but spelled differently, but do not ask a dyslexic to describe the difference—helps to get sanitary products to the girls. We talk about period poverty over here but period phobia is very real for some of these groups. We can give examples, if you will let us tell the rest of the world. Word of mouth will do some of it, but if the Government says that they have examples of what not to do, then we are prepared to help. But we need help as well. Unless the Government can take on this small thing, using their embassies and consulates, they will waste the efforts of their own charity sector, to a greater or lesser degree, and make life more difficult.
These are small organisations keeping their staff down and being run by volunteers. If you want to keep repeating mistakes, then carry on keeping these people in ignorance. The Government have the capacity to do something about this. Please can they give us some idea of when they will start?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for introducing the debate and to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for getting this issue on the Order Paper.
Our activities through official development assistance have given us many successes over the years and many reasons to be proud of the UK’s role in the world. In the times we find ourselves in, there are multiple areas on which we must continue to work, many of which we have heard about today. I have limited myself to two areas that I believe we must remain focused on, the first of which is malaria. I declare my interest as the chair of the board of trustees of the charity Malaria No More UK. We recently saw the seventh replenishment of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and we have heard very powerful cases made for this by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, my noble friend Lord Herbert and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I will focus on the third—malaria.
Last week, the WHO published its World Malaria Report, which showed that, tragically, 619,000 people died from malaria in 2021. Africa continues to experience 96% of those deaths, and a child still dies every minute from malaria. In just the time it will take for this debate, 180 children will die from a preventable and treatable disease. This year, we have seen some exciting innovations, many from here in the UK. Developments in vaccines and new insecticide bed nets could be real game-changers in the malaria fight. On replenishment, despite the difficult economic and political circumstances in the UK, we made a significant pledge towards the $15.7 billion raised, for which I thank our new Minister for Development, Andrew Mitchell, who is a great champion for malaria, among other things.
Like many aspects of global health, progress has stalled since the Covid-19 pandemic, but it is not too late to turn the tide and get us back on track. For us to succeed, the UK needs to play its part in investing in global health. We need a thriving R&D pipeline with enough funding to accelerate next-generation tool development; and we need to ensure increased funding to create resilient health systems, so that life-saving tools can reach the communities which need them, including through the Global Fund, GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance and our bilateral programmes. The UK has the diplomatic, scientific and financial muscle, still, that we need to get the fight back on track. I hope my noble friend the Minister can reassure me that we will continue our funding and show strong political leadership to help get us back on track.
As with many development issues, women and girls—particularly teenage girls and pregnant women—are disproportionately impacted by malaria, and they can be a key part of the solution in accelerating positive health outcomes. I believe we must look at malaria and all development issues through a gender lens—including our rugby programming, it appears.
We are living in a world of multiple crises, armed conflict, economic turmoil, the Covid-19 pandemic and climate change. All those things and their interaction impact the most vulnerable in society, particularly women and girls. We are seeing rape and other forms of sexual violence against women and girls, and we are seeing disruption to the provision of sexual and reproductive health and rights services. I support my noble friend Lady Hodgson’s Private Member’s Bill on women, peace and security, and I hope to hear more on that later.
On climate, according to yesterday’s report, the 2023 Emergency Watchlist published by the International Rescue Committee, an estimated 80% of people displaced by climate change are women and girls. The economic effects of extreme weather events can contribute to girls dropping out of school, push girls to early and forced marriage, and divert funding away from reproductive and sexual health services. All of this undermines their long-term opportunities and our hopes for truly sustainable development.
I look forward to the Government’s forthcoming women and girls strategy, and I hope my noble friend the Minister can reassure me that it will support ActionAid’s call to resource the women and girl-led organisations that provide life-saving services and help hold their Governments to account; to meaningfully partner with women and girls; and to provide long-term, flexible funding for women’s and girls’ rights organisations for their own priorities. I add to that a plea to re-establish the UK as a major player in sexual and reproductive health and rights. We know that such services lead to improvements in education, gender equality, political stability, economic development and environmental sustainability.
In my remaining time, I want to address the state of development here in the UK. I have spoken many times in this Chamber on the distressing outcomes that the cuts to UK aid have had on millions of people around the world. We have heard a lot more on that today from many noble Lords. This year, it has been exacerbated by the reported £3 billion that will be taken from the FCDO ODA budget because of the domestic costs of refugees.
Sadly, there has been very little transparency or accountability on these costs, despite my best efforts and those of many noble Lords. We find ourselves in the exceptional situation of not knowing what the FCDO budget is—and this is two weeks before the end of the ODA accounting year. That is hardly sound management of public money. Can my noble friend the Minister shed any light on how much of these domestic costs will be charged to ODA this year, in two weeks’ time? If not, will he commit to writing to me with an estimate?
Sadly, this is the latest in successive rounds of cuts that have been exacerbated by the merger between the FCO and DfID into the FCDO. Despite reassurances at the time, development has not been at the heart of this new department. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hannan that international development must be done well, not badly, but the merger has not helped this, and nor has it helped on accountability or evaluation.
It is not just the impact of these cuts but the way they have been done. A few weeks ago, at an international conference, I shared a panel with an African parliamentarian. She publicly criticised our actions, explaining how they were told that funding to provide women with contraception would be stopped, immediately, leaving them no time to find alternative resources. These are our partners and our allies who we have let down. As we heard from the right reverend Prelate, it impacts not only on our international development reputation and relationships with these partners but on our trading relationships, security partnerships and political relationships. This is at a time when we are seeing other actors leverage their investments and relationships for political gain. It is something I regret to see. I hope we can rebuild our relationships with our partners to ensure that they support us in our international aims and that we do the same.
I will end on a positive note. All is not lost; we have the opportunity to recover our international standing. I commend to noble Lords, the FCDO and the Treasury a recent article by Ranil Dissanayake and Stefan Dercon for the Center for Global Development, which sets out clearly the challenges and offers some effective solutions. It calls on us to articulate a vision and strategy for UK development policy, to establish controls to promote strategic and effective spending, and to rebuild and reverse the loss of development and expertise from the FCDO.
I am grateful that the Government once again have a seat for development at the Cabinet table, and that we have such a champion for development in Andrew Mitchell. With his work, and with political will from the Foreign Secretary, Chancellor and Prime Minister, we can take measures to ensure that our activity overseas through official development assistance gives us reason to be proud of our role in the world.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, whose principled decision to resign from the Government on this issue was a subject of admiration.
I made my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House in the summer of 2001, at the Second Reading of the Bill on international development. That Bill was a step along a road that made Britain a genuinely world-leading force in development policy—a process that was completed over the next decade or so, as our aid spending reached the UN target of 0.7% GNI. That annual commitment was then consolidated in our domestic law. Today’s debate is being held in very different circumstances, among the smoking ruins of that world-leading role.
It is high time we had a proper discussion of how that self-inflicted trashing of one of the main pillars of Britain’s soft power worldwide came about and what can and should be done in the future. For that opportunity, I am deeply grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for introducing the debate on her behalf. The noble Baroness played an important and positive role during the coalition Government and we should be very grateful for that.
The debacle came in two main stages, for both of which the principal responsibility rests with the right honourable Boris Johnson, whose solipsistic and sloppy policy-making led first to the swallowing-up of DfID in the FCO—a department with no working experience of implementing a multibillion-pound expenditure programme—and then, during the Covid pandemic, to the arbitrary reduction of the 0.7% annual commitment to 0.5%.
That drastic cut in resources, now being extended for a further lengthy period, was both unnecessary and disproportionate. Why do I say that? Because the terms of the 0.7% GNI commitment ensured that there would have been a proportionate reduction in our aid spending anyway, during the Covid pandemic, the Covid-related period of economic contraction and the current recession, however long it lasts.
These cuts too are being inflicted on a world whose needs have never been greater, as the impact of Covid and the Ukraine war are being felt worldwide. Hard though the Government try to conceal their impact on individual countries and on multi-annual programmes, their true extent is becoming daily more evident: in Somalia, suffering from an unprecedented drought; in Yemen, whose humanitarian crisis is as bad as ever; in programmes needed to combat climate change and mitigate its consequences; and in conflict prevention spending. That is without counting the substantial chunk of our aid budget which is going to the cost of Ukrainian refugees in this country. That payment is of course a worthy cause, without doubt, and it meets DAC rules, at least for one year, but it is hardly a core objective of our aid policy.
We really should hang down our heads in shame, even if other developed countries spend less on ODA than us; they should do so too. I have heard a recently retired senior UN official describe our aid policy now as making us a laughing stock in New York. What is to be done, as Lenin once wrote? Well, we can hope that the recent and very welcome appointment of the right honourable Andrew Mitchell as Minister for Development, with a seat in Cabinet, will remedy some of the damage inflicted by the balkanisation of DfID. Can we not also now create a critical path towards restoring our aid spending to 0.7% of GNI—that remains a commitment in our domestic law, I remind the House—and avoid simply postponing that outcome to the Greek calends, which is what current government policy actually adds up to?
Then there is the challenge of climate change. What contribution are we planning to make to the loss and damage fund which it was agreed at COP 27 should be set up? Will climate change spending be separate from the 0.5% cap—as it should be, as it is for the common good and not simply for the good of developing countries? Will we be prepared to champion a new global programme of debt forgiveness, not just the rephasing of debt, to help those developing countries most affected by Covid and the surge of inflation? Will we ensure that there is no reduction in WHO and other global health programmes, to which many other noble Lords have referred, which are designed to guard against future pandemics and long-standing diseases such as malaria?
The answers to those questions matter, not just for ethical and humanitarian reasons, but because they affect Britain’s soft power in an era when we will need it more than ever, as we face the rivalry of authoritarian states, which will be a continuing feature of the world in which we live.
At the beginning of this week, I listened to the Foreign Secretary’s first major speech since he took office. It was very well crafted and its main contention that we need to strengthen our relations, in particular with the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, was surely well taken. But just how compelling will that message be when it is accompanied by drastic cuts in our contributions to those same countries’ own development priorities? Not very compelling, I suggest. I fear that the gap between rhetoric and reality is just too wide.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for securing this debate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, on so ably introducing it. I draw attention to my registered interests, particularly around women, peace and security, the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative, and Afghanistan.
UK aid and development work helps to address disasters and extreme poverty. It encourages human rights and promotes democratic and peaceful societies. Much good has been achieved over the years, and it is an area where there is a lot of cross-party consensus. My noble friend Lord Hannan talked about measuring impact. Some ODA is measurable—disaster relief, schools and hospitals built, and children educated and vaccinated—but quite a lot of it is not. The empowerment and democracy programmes are a long-term investment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and others already said, prior to the pandemic the UK was at the global forefront on international development. It was the first of the G7 countries to declare 0.7% for ODA, and international development was a leading pillar of our soft power. Since then we seem to have retracted, with ODA reduced to 0.5% and not all of it reaching fragile countries. At this moment, a number of questions need asking. DfID had a worldwide reputation; has the effect of the DfID/FCO merger harmed this? Is the aid for trade approach detrimental? Are we throwing away all the good will and irrevocably damaging our soft power at a time, in the aftermath of Brexit, when we need it most?
I ask my noble friend the Minister to clearly lay out the situation. Before the pandemic, the ODA spend was around £14 billion. I understand that it has reduced to £10 billion. How much of that is going to help overseas and what proportion is being diverted to refugees in the UK? Of course we need to help those fleeing conflict, most recently all the refugees from Afghanistan and Ukraine. However, I understand that most countries do not fund domestic help for refugees out of ODA, and in February this year the price for this was standing at £4.7 million daily. Why is the UK funding refugee costs in this way?
Identifying efficient and effective programmes is key. Other noble Lords already raised the issue of funding. Is channelling so much funding in large tranches through the UN and multilateral agencies good value for money, as they often take an enormous top slice? Surely, in terms of impact, there is a good case for more funds being given directly to grass-roots projects. Our embassies are excellent conduits for identifying local, effective, trustworthy projects. However, too often the funding for these comes in too late, needs to be spent in a short timeframe, and, as has been raised, lasts for only a year, with small charities worrying about survival and then having to deal with onerous reporting.
It was clear from sessions at the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative conference that there needs to be more input from the grass roots in designing projects so that they appropriately address specific and unique needs. I urge the FCDO to consider how it could achieve a new approach on this, as funding at the grass roots with comparatively small grants can yield transformative results.
The rights of women and girls have been significantly rolled back on all fronts globally. The Covid pandemic hugely increased violence against women and the increase of conflict has fuelled abuse and sexual violence, as we so graphically heard at the PSVI conference two weeks ago. At the moment, the humanitarian response to GBV and SRHR is very underfunded. To achieve gender equality, women and girls need control over their own lives and bodies. Access to contraception is key. I am also concerned that the focus on maternal mortality has been lost.
Equally important is access to safe abortion. No woman should have to bear a child through rape. Safe abortion care saves lives, as every year, through lack of access to abortion, there are some 35 million dangerous backstreet abortions, resulting in the death of at least 23,000 women, with millions more left with injuries and disabilities. At a time when we face an emboldened anti-rights movement, can the Minister undertake to look at UK funding to ensure that we redouble our efforts on rights-based access to family planning and delivering universal health coverage? We look forward to the international women and girls strategy next year, with its three Es of education, empowerment and ending violence, as the UK’s core agenda of promoting freedom and democracy cannot happen without freedom for women.
Poverty fuels conflict, and war zones are poor zones. In the past decade there has been an increase in violent conflict globally, so why is there a focus on conflict resolution rather than conflict prevention? We should not forget that just $1 of peacebuilding can lead to a $16 reduction in the cost of armed conflict. Surely, we would rather spend money on aid than arms. How effective has the new FCDO conflict centre been so far, given that, as I understand it, its budget has been cut?
Conflict disproportionately affects women. The UK has led the way on the women, peace and security agenda. We hold the pen for this at the UN and were one of the first countries to support UN Security Council Resolution 1325. However, in the introduction to the Government’s latest report, UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security 2018 to 2022, the FCDO and MoD Secretaries of State recognise that there have been real challenges to this agenda and that the progress of the last 20 years is under threat. The situation has been clearly highlighted by what has happened in Afghanistan, with every woman in a public position having to flee for her life; and we have heard horrific reports of the use in Ukraine of rape as a weapon of war.
Some noble Lords here today supported the Second Reading of my Private Member’s Bill, the Women, Peace and Security Bill. I hope that the discussion today has highlighted how this Bill will help future-proof our commitment to systematic gender consideration and responsiveness in UK foreign and defence policy, and to ensuring that the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative continues. I very much hope that the Minister will commit this afternoon to supporting the Bill.
This is indeed a timely debate, taking place right after Human Rights Day and the 16 days of activism to prevent violence against women, and at a time when progress on the SDGs appears to be falling behind. Surely, we must view foreign aid as an investment, not an expense, and its ultimate goal must be to make countries self-sufficient and economically prosperous, and to prevent poverty, bring peace and help empower all.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger. I agree wholeheartedly with every word she said. I thank my noble friend Lady Northover for initiating this debate and regret the circumstances which prevented her moving the Motion herself. I commend my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie for the way in which he introduced the debate, and for giving us the benefit of his breadth and depth of knowledge in this area.
Let me start by taking, like so many others have in this House, a moment of pride in the country in which we live. I refer of course to the moment in 2015 when the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act put into law the long-standing call by the UN for donor countries to spend 0.7 % of their GNI on official development assistance. However, in November 2020, despite a commitment in the Conservative Party manifesto—at this point, I just say that I welcome the contribution to the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. He talked about the democratic process being undermined. A manifesto commitment being cast aside helps make my point that the democratic process is certainly not undermined and that Governments giving commitments should stick very much within them.
The commitment to 0.7% in the manifesto was cast aside and reduced to 0.5%. This happened at a time when the Covid crisis had increased the need for our support for and commitment to the world’s poorest. It has been compounded by the hardship caused by the war in Ukraine in the immediate impact of the food shortages, not least in east Africa, and in other ways that I will come on to later.
While this cut was agreed by the Commons in July 2021, it had in fact started with immediate effect the previous November, in a chaotic and one might say callous manner, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, referred to and which the then FCDO Secretary of State did so little to mitigate. With very little warning, aid programmes including study grants were terminated midstream. This, at least, with some foresight, thought and compassion, could have been done differently. So much for Conservative compassion.
At this point I will give a little example from my own experience. I am a trustee of the Malaria Consortium and very much agree with all the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. The Malaria Consortium had a programme in Nigeria, SuNMaP 2, which was terminated immediately on the announcement. This completely undermined about a decade’s work that had put in place, together with the local, regional and central Governments in Nigeria, systems that were really beginning to bear fruit and embed processes in that country. This was all lost at a stroke. It is such a tragedy.
It is welcome that we now have a Minister in charge of development who is respected by the development community. However, unless the fundamentals of aid delivery are recognised and until such a time as openness, transparency and accountability again become core elements of the aid budget, he will be in place but not in control.
This Government’s record of letting down the poorest in the world remains deplorable. Just last month the FCDO announced that the ODA budget had been reduced to £7.6 billion for 2022-23, a £1.7 billion cut compared with the budget the Government started the financial year with. This depletion of the already-reduced aid budget is a direct result of the UK Government increasingly seeking to meet the cost of hosting refugees domestically from the ODA budget. Here, I register my involvement in the Homes for Ukraine scheme, under which I am sponsoring a family. While earmarking ODA to meet the costs of hosting refugees domestically is permitted under the OECD DAC rules, the UK is the only G7 country to fund all the costs of hosting Ukrainian refugees from the aid budget.
To put this in context, in 2021 more than £1 billion, which represents the largest proportion of the bilateral aid budget at 14%, was diverted to the Home Office to meet UK refugee costs. Over the same period, £743 million was lost on humanitarian aid, which dropped by a whopping 51% compared with 2020. While the Government recently committed an additional £2.5 billion over two years to cover the costs of hosting refugees, taking the UK’s ODA budget up to 0.55% of GNI, this will not be enough to cover the shortfall.
Diverting money from the aid budget to in-country refugee spending is morally wrong. The Government are effectively providing a blank cheque to the Home Office in the form of the ODA budget, asking the world’s most vulnerable communities to foot the bill for the UK’s international legal obligation to refugees.
I am going to finish on loss and damage. The UK provides climate financing in the form of grants, which are crucial to ensure that countries such as those in east Africa do not go into debt in putting in place adaptation measures to prevent climate devastation. It is important that this future-proofing continues, not least because it will help to stem refugee flows from those regions.
I welcome the major achievement of COP 27 in establishing for the first time a fund for loss and damage. That is an historic achievement, and it is crucial that it is urgently operationalised so that countries on the front line of the climate crisis can quickly access fair and automatic financial assistance and support in the wake of both immediate climate impacts and slow-onset impacts such as sea-level rise.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, what work have the Government done on how a loss and damage finance facility should function and how contributions should be calculated? Secondly, will the Government consider a debt-swap arrangement such as the one advocated by the Maldives, where the debt of vulnerable countries is cancelled in exchange for commitments to invest in high-quality decarbonisation projects? They would dearly like to do both but cannot afford to. Loss and damage is really important. After all—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness of the time limit.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I am just about to finish. The polluter pays principle is well established. Why should it not apply equally to the developing world, which after all did nothing to cause the climate devastation that we see with increasing frequency?
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for securing this timely and critical debate. I am sorry that she is not able to be with us today, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for leading it instead.
The debate is timely because, as we all know, there is huge demand and need for aid and assistance overseas following the pandemic, war in Ukraine, Afghanistan and multiple other humanitarian crises, and it is critical because our ODA budget appears to be suffering death by a thousand cuts. As Andrew Mitchell, the new Minister of State, admitted to the International Development Committee last week, the UK has lost its “development superpower” status as domestic issues increasingly marginalise overseas aid.
Rather than simply wringing my hands, I want to suggest to the Minister a strategy that is gaining support across both Houses. To that end, I should declare that I am vice-chair of the newly formed APPG on Aid Match, which includes 19 parliamentarians across all party groups. I shall say more on that later.
I want to focus on the ODA budget itself and seek some transparency on the key numbers. Many of us here have spoken out against the Government’s appalling decision to cut overseas aid by 30%, from 0.7% of GNI to 0.5%. I will not rehearse the arguments now as it is clear that the measure will not be reversed by this Government, even though both Andrew Mitchell and the Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, spoke out and voted against the cuts two years ago.
However, I ask the Minister to confirm the Treasury’s view on when the UK economy will meet the two fiscal tests—notably, that underlying government debt as a percentage of GDP is falling—to restore the 0.7%. We have been told “fiscal 2025” but also that the new Prime Minister is considering extending the freeze at 0.5% for two years beyond that. I ask because many of the projects that we support are necessarily long-term and structural, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, pointed out, such as education, healthcare and sanitation. Our aid partners have an increasingly impossible job to plan and execute if their budgets are being reduced by 50% or more, as they are in many cases, especially for bilateral aid.
What should we make of the startling fact that in 2021 we cut our bilateral aid to lower-income countries by 40%, compared to a 17% reduction to middle-income countries? Can the Minister advise on when we will see the full impact reports of these cuts? We need greater transparency on the casualties of these costs, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, highlighted.
The problem is exacerbated by some 30% of this diminished ODA budget now being siphoned off to the Home Office to finance the burgeoning costs of housing refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, notably from Ukraine. In real terms, I believe this has reduced our overseas aid budget—I stress “overseas”—to close to 0.3% and not 0.5% of GNI. That is less than it was in 1997. I appreciate that international rules allow for this cost, which I believe is some £3 billion, to be taken from the ODA budget, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, has just pointed out. However, we are the only G7 country doing this in practice, rather than taking it from Treasury reserves. Can the Minister please confirm what proportion of ODA is expected to fund the cost of refugees in the UK in 2023? Given that many of these refugees become economically active in this country within their first 12 months here, which is very welcome given our shrinking workforce, it seems entirely wrong that the ODA shoulders the whole burden.
I too am delighted to see Andrew Mitchell back as Minister of State for Development. I read with interest his comments in front of the International Development Committee last week. He spoke a lot of sense, especially about the quality and quantity of spend. In particular, he raised a point about squeezing
“a quart out of a pint pot”
in looking for collaborative and innovative ways to bolster overseas aid spending. In search of such a multiplier, I refer the Minister to the concept of using the Government’s ODA to match-fund, and therefore attract substantial private donations. This model, pioneered by the Fortune Forum charity, was adopted by DfID in 2011; it led to the formation of the private sector department and its design of UK Aid Match. This resulted in delivering effective aid through over 100 blue-chip NGOs in more than 50 countries, impacting some 100 million lives.
Yet, impressive though those numbers are, the £377 million in matching funds through the various rounds between 2011 and today represents just 0.2% of the UK’s ODA. It should and could be so much more. Raising it to just 2% of ODA would represent real progress, unlocking hundreds of millions of pounds of private donations for front-line NGOs, without draining further funds from the taxpayer. Can I therefore ask the Minister to look into this initiative and raise it with the Secretary of State at the earliest opportunity?
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, the key focus for UK international development policy and aid spend should be tackling poverty, accelerating sustainable development in developing countries and tackling inequalities. This is not only the right thing to do but in our national interest, and we should be clear about that in making the case. It is outcomes which matter.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to not leave anyone behind, which means that ODA spending needs to reach the world’s poorest and most marginalised, and most especially women and girls. We are experiencing ongoing and protracted global crises. Covid, and now the economic crisis, has deepened inequalities and rolled back progress on gender equality by a generation. We know that women and girls are particularly affected by these crises: the east Africa hunger crisis, climate change, and conflicts such as Ukraine and its spillover effects all impact women and girls disproportionately. The rights of girls in so many countries are going backwards and we in this country should count our blessings every day.
There is an urgent need to accelerate outcomes for gender equality, strengthen women’s and girls’ leadership and prioritise a locally led approach. When you invest in women and girls and their rights, especially reproductive rights, and their education, you invest in entire communities. For example, decreasing gender gaps in employment alone can significantly stimulate economic growth and increase global wealth by $160 trillion, which is urgently needed, now more than ever.
Research shows that, due to traditional gender roles, women assess risk differently from men and typically prioritise the welfare of their families and communities. Such differences in decision-making extend to national politics. A 2019 study shows that national Parliaments with more women pass more effective policies on families, climate and other issues. Studies show that investing in high-quality sexual and reproductive health services means that unintended pregnancies drop by 68% and maternal deaths drop by 62%, as well as giving women the choice of when to have children and how many to have, which leads to a subsequent improvement in living standards. IMF research shows that an increase in violence against women by one percentage point is associated with a 9% lower level of economic activity. So I welcome the Government’s commitment, and reiteration of their commitment, to invest in gender equality, not only because it is the right thing to do but because it is the smart thing to do.
There is also political momentum. The Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative conference, hosted by the UK in London two weeks ago and mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, was a key opportunity to listen to survivors’ voices demanding action. On gender-based violence, the UK Government have historically been a leading donor on prevention of violence against women and girls in international development and through the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative. We need to remain committed to this priority and to supporting global gender equality through our foreign and development policy.
We all have our daily routines, and one of mine is to do squats as I clean my teeth. Another is to take a moment, as I bicycle over the bridge every morning, to reflect on the lives of women and girls across the globe, struggling with the consequences and challenges of being born with two X chromosomes. This year, we have watched with dismay as the position of so many females has deteriorated so significantly in so many countries, not least with the challenges that we women and girls face here in the UK.
The previous Foreign Secretary committed to restoring funding to women and girls. I know that Minister Mitchell has long championed women and girls, and specifically girls’ education; can my noble friend the Minister confirm that commitment and say when he thinks this will be achieved? We must continue to invest in programmes that focus on improving people’s lives through giving them opportunities to build a livelihood and provide for their families, meeting basic needs and educating children, especially girls. I look forward to the upcoming women and girls strategy. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure me that this will be a comprehensive strategy that will embed the importance of work on gender equality across all aspects of the FCDO?
I appreciate that many of us have made the case today for the causes that we individually champion and have argued for during this debate. But many noble Lords have mentioned our long and proud history of supporting the health and rights of women and girls around the world, and I hope that we can all agree that that should be continued.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for initiating this debate. I am sorry that she is unable to be present, particularly because she has great experience and wisdom in this area. However, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for taking her place today to allow this important debate to proceed.
These are difficult times, with the climate, conflict and the aftershocks of Covid causing serious social and economic shocks worldwide, with the poorest and the most vulnerable suffering most, both at home and overseas. The Government have difficult choices to make, and we hope that the world will return as swiftly as possible to the path of stability and sustainability that is required if we are to deliver on the United Nations’ sustainable development goals by the end of the decade.
It is at times like these that we must think carefully about our own contribution to the path that the world takes going forward. Last week, as we have heard, the Development Minister highlighted that the UK’s prestige is impacted by the cuts in overseas development aid and the cost of supporting those who have fled to the UK from war zones. When it comes to Ukraine, we are of course dealing with an emergency in which we all must play our part. Here I declare my interest as chairman-trustee of the Loomba Foundation. I am proud that the Loomba Foundation, in partnership with Barnardo’s, is delivering a programme to provide financial support to 1,000 families who have fled to the UK from Ukraine, to assist them in taking the first vital steps towards settling here and helping them build a more positive future.
Many are calling for overseas development assistance to be increased, but I want to focus on how, in these difficult times, we can build on our strengths as a foundation for rebuilding our influence in the years ahead. To name an area where I have direct experience, I would highlight girls’ education, where this country’s commitment to gender equality offers a moral beacon to the world. Education has formed an important part of the work of the Loomba Foundation since our establishment 25 years ago with a mission to educate the children of poor widows in India and so break the cycle of deprivation. Unfortunately, when it comes to education in India, as in many other countries, boys are given preference. Another area on which the Loomba Foundation has focused is providing skills training to widows so that they can earn money, become self-reliant, educate their children and lead a life of dignity.
I urge the Government to keep the strategic importance of overseas development aid uppermost in their calculations. While difficult choices have to be made, I ask the Minister in particular to assure the House that international programmes focused on delivering education for girls in low and middle-income countries will not be cut and that the Government will continue delivering aid to charities engaged in educating girls.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I know that my noble friend Lady Northover will take some solace at this difficult time for her and her family when she reads this debate in Hansard and sees the credit she has been given in her absence for securing this important time to allow us to make all these contributions, with great seriousness, on such an important issue. From these Benches, I am also very glad that we could deploy our super-sub, my noble friend Lord Bruce, to so comprehensively open the debate and steer it in the perfect direction to allow the consideration of these important issues.
We take so many things for granted in this country, even at a time of enormous economic pressure and uncertainty—for example, girls being able to go to the toilet in privacy; turning a tap on and drinking a glass of water; or brushing our teeth in clean water, even if we are not doing squats like the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin.
I declare an interest in that I contribute to parliamentary strengthening work. Last week I was in Malawi, a country that has been badly afflicted over the years by HIV and AIDS, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and malaria, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg.
Last Friday was a day of great shame for me. I visited a constituency in an extremely rural area of Malawi with the First Deputy Speaker. I went to a village where the source of water for that village of 150 people is a filthy stream. The women go at night to collect the water, which is, relatively, the safest time that they can do so. Of course, toilet facilities for girls, indeed any facilities in the area, are still a bit of a distant hope. I got back to the hotel in Lilongwe and saw pinging on the news that a Member of this House was taking leave because she was being investigated for making profit out of PPE schemes. That week in Malawi, I was held in fairly high regard because I am a Member of this House. I still have not quite come to terms with the juxtaposition of my experiences on that day.
It is in the context of water and sanitary health—which we take for granted—that, as the Independent Commission for Aid Impact highlighted in its report earlier this year, the Government made the decision to cut funding by more than two-thirds, from £206.5 million to £70 million. As has been referenced before, this is not theoretical or academic; it will have an immediate impact on lives. These are choices, and the consequences, as Bond put it,
“ended an era of bold global leadership by the UK on the provision of safe water, sanitation and hygiene for the world’s poor, just when that bold UK leadership is needed most.”
This is by choice. I respect the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Hannan and Lord Herbert, when they say that these are difficult times. Of course they are. In September, however, the Government chose, in their mini-Budget, to announce a tax cut for those earning £150,000 or more and to borrow amounts comparative to the overseas development aid cut to pay for it. These are choices. As my noble friend Lady Sheehan said, when the House of Commons voted for the 0.5% fiscal rules, the French Parliament voted that same week to move within this period to 0.7%. These are choices.
When it comes to the issue of the deep crisis and famine that we have heard about in the Horn of Africa and east Africa, the Government made a choice to contribute £156 million to the region, compared with the £861 million that we contributed in 2017. It has a direct impact on lives.
I have found that part of the difficulty is—as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick—in finding out what the Government intend to do in their Budget Statements. There has been deliberate obfuscation. The noble Baroness asked the Minister to estimate when we might meet the fiscal tests. The Government said, when they cut to 0.5%, that this would be down to the Office for Budget Responsibility. The OBR, in its spring review, said that the tests would be met for 2023, but the Government did not like that answer, so they said that they would defer it to the Autumn Statement. Of course, we have now seen the consequences of the fiscal situation as a result of the Government’s announcement in September.
One area in which I hope the Minister can be crystal clear this afternoon is the absolutely clear promise by Liz Truss when she was Foreign Secretary to restore funding for women and girls. Regardless of the scale, this is about a commitment to restore that funding. The noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Hodgson, and others have raised these issues repeatedly. I raised this with the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, during Oral Questions on 28 February this year and asked where we were with that commitment. He replied:
“My Lords, as I said, the Foreign Secretary has been clear that we are restoring funding to women and girls.”—[Official Report, 28/2/22; col. 541.]
On 23 November, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, where we were with that, because I could not see any results from that commitment. He replied:
“I would say to the noble Lord … that it is not just about money.”—[Official Report, 23/11/22; col. 1367.]
Of course it is not just about money, but this was a promise given by the Government. Are we meeting it? Where is the information? If the Minister responds to any part of my contribution, I hope he will reply to that.
As my noble friends Lady Suttie and Lord Bruce said, what has been so disappointing is that the consensus that had developed has been replaced by a degree of cynicism, artificially using Treasury rules, obfuscation, a lack of transparency and refusals to publish key impact data and gender equality assessments—which a parliamentary committee had to publish through parliamentary privilege because the Government refused to do so. Country plans are still not in place for us to scrutinise. It was only with repeated questioning that we found out that UK support for Ukrainian refugees here at home is to be at the cost of those who can least afford it abroad.
It is not just about the money, but the tragedy of losing the consensus we seemed to have developed, which was that we understood the essential components of effective aid: innovative research, joint working with partner countries and professional delivery, with the do no harm principle in extremely difficult areas. It was also about doing it at scale—not to an arbitrary figure, but to a figure which would make the difference for outcomes.
As a very rich nation—a member of the very small club of the richest nations on earth—we also have a moral duty. That is why it was to me outrageous to read the National Audit Office report—not a political statement, but the NAO report—which highlighted that the decision to make significant cuts was made in one month and without any consultation with local partners to inform the exercise.
Ultimately, our overseas development assistance is about partnership. It is not about giving aid, but building partnerships on trust, predictability and reliability. Those have been washed away. The UK is no longer a predictable or reliable partner. The choices we have made have greatly undermined trust. The head of the UNDP told me and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, in a meeting when the Government announced the reductions that we are not cutting aid but ending partnerships. That is why my noble friend Lord Bruce is right that we must rebuild this.
Of course, the challenges are enormous. The shame of living in a rich country does not necessarily go away by restoring 0.7% and we will not be able to solve all the problems within the SDG period. But for the first time in our country’s history, more bilateral overseas assistance will be spent at home than overseas. That should be scarring for this Government. We want to be a good partner. We want to ensure that children, whether in the rural Scottish Borders or rural Malawi, feel that they can go to the toilet safely and drink clean water. That should be a fundamental principle. The Government need to rebuild their trust and do so urgently.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for securing this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for his excellent introduction. As my noble friend Lord McConnell said, the Covid pandemic, the global financial crisis, the global energy crisis and the climate emergency show that the world is more interdependent than ever, and our fates more closely intertwined. Development and diplomacy are our best tools in the fight against poverty, conflict and climate change, and being a force for good in the world means always making a stand against injustices, human rights abuses and suffering. It also means putting forward a vision for a more secure and prosperous future, delivering on the UN’s global goals and fulfilling our commitments to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people.
But instead of making multilateralism work, this Government have sometimes seemed intent on breaking our relationships and trashing our reputation. They retreated from Britain’s commitments, cutting our development target from 0.7% to 0.5%, and stripped billions from vital aid programmes in the process. As the right reverend Prelate highlighted, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said, it was the speed and the indiscriminate nature of these cuts that caused the most damage. The Government undermined delivery, overseeing a bungled merger between DfID and the Foreign Office which has resulted in deprioritising development, sapping morale and pushing out our expertise. As noble Lords have highlighted in this debate, they are now projected to spend £3 billion of the development budget here in the UK, to cover the costs of incoming refugees.
The international development strategy that we saw published takes a transactional approach to aid which risks repeating the worst mistakes of the past—and I pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. The improvement in the UK’s credibility on aid after the horrors of the Pergau Dam was not a matter of chance but of choice: the choice to untie aid and focus on the goal of poverty eradication. Under the leadership of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the UK set its sights on that global target of 0.7%. The UK played a key role in the millennium conference, making global progress on malaria, food, education and health, bringing the world together. One of Labour’s lasting achievements has been to forge a new political consensus around development, and it was in Britain’s interests that it should be rigorous and transparent, focused on effectiveness and value for money. It was something that Britain should be truly proud of.
To their credit, David Cameron and George Osborne sustained that commitment, keeping Britain on the path to 0.7% that Labour had set. It was an important area of broad, cross-party consensus, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, but I fear that under the numerous Tory Prime Ministers we have had since—Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak—that consensus has broken down. In a world of global challenges and political divides, we need both the long-term transformational agenda of development and the political nous of good diplomacy. Both will be essential as we continue that hard work towards the ambitions of the sustainable development goals and beyond.
We must lead by example, not break our word or our commitments. Our commitment to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable also means spending on the right aid projects. That means supporting multipliers, so that we do get more bang for our buck; multipliers such as nutrition, clean water, education and universal health coverage, all of which have myriad developmental benefits. We must address the twin drivers of climate change and conflict, championing the green energy transition and climate finance, and supporting peacebuilding and conflict prevention.
Sadly, ICAI’s recent review of UK peacebuilding efforts found that chaotic management of the aid budget has set back those efforts. We need to offer an alternative to Chinese physical infrastructure, and link it to British innovation in education, governance and healthcare to support their own development. And yes, we must get Britain back on track to meet its commitment to the UN’s 0.7% development target as soon as the fiscal situation allows. Even at a time of real economic hardship and fiscal constraint, it is in the UK’s national interest to restore our leadership in international development.
I echo the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, by saying that Labour remains committed to a feminist development policy. Away from the world’s gaze, millions of school-age girls across Africa face forced marriage, with all the dangers and humiliations it wreaks. The leaked impact assessments of the 2021 aid spending reductions revealed that the Government were warned that their cuts would disproportionately impact women and girls. I hope that, in the interests of transparency, the Minister will commit today to publish the impact assessments of the pause on non-essential aid this summer.
A Labour Government will campaign for climate change to become a fourth pillar of the UN and will push for a new international law of ecocide to criminalise the wilful and widespread destruction of the environment. To amplify the point made by my noble friend Lord McConnell, Labour will legislate to ensure that Britain’s aid budget makes climate action a priority.
In conclusion, it is time to repair our relationships with our allies around the world, to revitalise our nation’s soft power, influence and impact with a renewed strategy for modernising international development, to restore the influence of multilateral institutions such as the UN, and—once again, I hope—to build a consensus across the House to ensure that we reach the target of 0.7%, because it is the national interest for Britain to be a force for good in our world.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I start by echoing the thoughts of many noble Lords by offering my own condolences to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on her family loss. At the same, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, for stepping in so ably and for tabling the debate. I also thank all noble Lords for their considered contributions. I acknowledge that many Peers are critical of the Government’s current position on ODA, and fear that I may not be able to give too much comfort to the House with my remarks; but, as ever, I will try to do my best.
The debate is particularly timely given the international context. I start by saying something which has not been said this afternoon: my first thoughts are with those who have tragically lost their lives—once again, I am afraid to say—crossing the English Channel this week. I cannot deny that the pandemic and Russia’s barbaric attack on Ukraine have both compromised progress on development; my noble friend Lord Herbert acknowledged that in his remarks. However, the geopolitical context has magnified the importance of our development work, while placing extra demands on our budgets, including the unforeseen costs of supporting Ukrainian and Afghan refugees, for which the Government are providing additional resource. I will say more about that in a moment. As my right honourable friend Andrew Mitchell said in the other place, it is the right thing to do and a legitimate and fair use of ODA; that has also been acknowledged by the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Hannay. I welcome the return of my right honourable friend Andrew Mitchell to the Government. I know that his return is widely applauded today because, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said, he understands his subject area—and while that assessment is correct, it is probably a bit of an understatement.
I will answer a question raised by my noble friend Lady Sugg on the amount of domestic costs for refugee hosting that has been charged to ODA. That question was also raised by my noble friend Lady Hodgson and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. The UK is providing significant support to people from Afghanistan and Ukraine who are fleeing conflict and seeking sanctuary in the UK, which is the right thing to do. Under OECD DAC rules, some elements of support given to asylum seekers and refugees for the first 12 months of their stay in the UK is counted as ODA, if they originate from ODA-eligible countries. As such, a significant proportion of the ODA budget is being spent domestically. That is legitimate under the rules and is a right and fair use of ODA. However, to answer my noble friend Lady Sugg’s specific question on total costs, it is a dynamic situation, and the exact costs of hosting refugees domestically will be available only when we finalise our statistics for international development for 2022, which I can reassure the House will be made public.
To take a step back for a moment, the UK has a proud history of international development, from the Ministry of Overseas Development in the 1960s and its various guises, including as the Department for International Development, to the formation of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in 2020. The UK has long been a leader in international development. We were the first G7 country to meet the UN’s long-standing target to spend 0.7% of GNI on ODA in 2013, and we were at the forefront of negotiating the sustainable development goals. I will say more about this later.
As we know—I have listened to much of the criticism this afternoon—the UK’s ODA budget now sits at around 0.5% of GNI. Points were raised very passionately, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. I would like to add a little balance, which chimes with the remarks of my noble friends Lord Herbert and Lord Hannan. In providing this balance, I will answer a question asked by my noble friend Lady Hodgson. In 2021, the amount we spent was over £11 billion, making us still one of the most generous aid donors in the G7. That is equivalent to half the cost of what it took to build the Elizabeth line. No one can deny that this funding is generous.
Added to this is the British public’s enormous support for the people fleeing conflict and seeking sanctuary here from Afghanistan and Ukraine. To meet the significant and unanticipated costs of this support, the Treasury will provide additional resources of £1 billion this financial year and £1.5 billion next financial year. We continue to pledge our steadfast support for Ukraine. It is right that the UK rises to meet these challenges by allocating additional resources. The FCDO is the largest aid spender across government, spending 72% of all UK government ODA in 2021. Given these pressures, the FCDO will have to manage a lower ODA budget than it was allocated in the spending review 2021 settlement.
With this, we are reminded that there are very difficult choices for the Government to make about how to manage this reduction—which, again, a few Peers have said this afternoon. However, I hope to reassure the House that we do have a plan. I will start by giving three overarching objectives. First, we will focus our spending on the priorities set out in the international development strategy, while maximising value for money and our flexibility to respond to emerging issues.
Secondly, because multilateral organisations, such as the UN and the Global Fund for AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, remain essential partners for achieving our goals, we will meet the financial commitments we have made to them. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, raised tuberculosis, which I hope to say more about in a moment, and my noble friend Lady Sugg raised malaria. I will try to help by answering the questions raised, particularly on malaria, although I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and others raised Nigeria, and my noble friend Lord Fowler, if I may call him that, gave a passionate speech on AIDS.
My right honourable friend in the other place, Andrew Mitchell, was pleased to speak at the launch of the World Malaria Report on Monday, an event organised by Malaria No More, which my noble friend Lady Sugg mentioned that she chairs. Minister Mitchell spoke of the department’s commitment to the fight against malaria and to getting back on track to meet the target to end the epidemic of malaria by 2030. As the Minister said, it is appalling that malaria, a disease that is eminently preventable and treatable, kills a child every minute of every day. He was pleased to announce a £1 billion commitment to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
Through this funding, the UK will support the delivery of malaria treatments and care to over 18 million people, and the distribution of 86 million mosquito nets to protect children and families from malaria. The UK is also supporting research and development in the fight against malaria, investing in other global health institutions, and supporting other countries. That might help to answer the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, on research and development, although I acknowledge it might not go the whole way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, spoke about TB in particular. I will answer, although perhaps not in full, some of the questions that she asked. As part of our £1 billion contribution to the global fund, which I just mentioned, TB treatment and care will benefit 1.1 million people; screen 20 million people for the disease; and provide 41,800 people—it is very precise—with treatment for multidrug-resistant TB. We are also supporting the Stop TB Partnership’s TB REACH programme with £6 million to fund new approaches aiming to increase the number of people diagnosed with and treated for TB. I could say a bit more but, in the interests of time, I will move on, if I may.
The noble Baroness also asked about support for the WHO in developing an Ebola vaccine and for the outbreak in Uganda. We have been working with the WHO, CEPI, Oxford University and others to support the Government of Uganda on vaccine trials. Trial vaccines have arrived in the country within 80 days of the outbreak being declared—a significant achievement by all partners that demonstrates the progress made on the 100-day mission, which the noble Baroness will know about.
Let me move back to our overarching objectives; I want to talk, thirdly, about what we are doing. The FCDO will act swiftly to manage its bilateral programmes this financial year. We will approach this in a proportionate way, empowering experts in our missions and relevant policy teams to ensure that we prioritise the right areas.
Let me now go into the priorities of the UK Government’s strategy for international development, having focused on the overarching objectives. As the House may know, this strategy outlines four priorities and a patient approach to development. Our patient approach involves working more closely with partner countries to help them build the capabilities and effective institutions for lasting progress, and to help them tackle the structural barriers that they face. We will bring the combined power of the UK’s global economic, scientific, security and diplomatic strengths to bolster our development partnerships, and we will harness the best of British expertise to channel world-class UK business, civil society networks, research partnerships and technology capability to countries across the world.
The four priorities are as follows. The first is to deliver clean and reliable investment through British investment partnerships. These partnerships will help low and middle-income countries get the investment that they need to grow resilient, open, thriving economies and reduce their strategic dependence on others.
The second priority, which has been very much a theme of this debate, is providing women and girls with the freedom that they need to succeed. Some interesting and helpful speeches were made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington—particularly on rugby programmes—and my noble friends Lady Sugg, Lady Jenkin and Lady Hodgson. I want to try to answer one or two questions that were asked about this important subject but, before I do, let me say that we will educate girls by standing up for the right of every girl to have 12 years of quality education. We will empower women and girls by unlocking their social, economic and political potential, and we will drive international action to end all forms of gender-based violence.
My noble friend Lady Sugg asked some detailed questions about the forthcoming women and girls strategy. In addition to what I have already said, let me say that tackling gender inequality and standing up for the rights of women and girls around the world are a core part of the UK Government’s mission. The FCDO recognises that grass-roots women’s rights organisations are critical to achieving lasting transformation across all our gender equality objectives and we are committed to stepping up our work in this area. The FCDO is exploring options for new support. I am aware of the appalling crimes—I put it that way: “crimes”—that are being committed in both Iran and Afghanistan; some particular examples from Afghanistan were given.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked me some specific questions on whether we are restoring the bilateral budget for women and girls. He made some passionate remarks about this. In line with what I have just said, we will report on this in due course. Unfortunately, I do not have anything further to say on that this afternoon.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, promised me in February that the funding will be restored. Could the Minister be quite clear and just say to me now if that promise is still a promise?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am not able to actually say that, but what I can say is that we will report on this in due course. I am not going to stand here at the Dispatch Box and say something that I cannot promise, but of course I am with the noble Lord in hoping that it might be the case.
The third priority, therefore, moving on, is to step-up our life-saving humanitarian work. The UK is a global leader in driving more effective approaches to humanitarian crises. For example, our proactive thought-leadership and innovative approaches on cash transfers have helped double the volume of cash programming in humanitarian settings since 2016, reaching $5.6 billion by the end of 2019. With our allies and partners, we will prioritise humanitarian assistance for people in greatest need: this was a point raised by my noble friend Lord Hannan, which I think he cited as being an easy decision for ODA spending. He is of course right: that is very important. It includes protecting people most at risk, and anticipating and preventing future shocks.
Our fourth development priority is to take forward our work on climate change, nature and global health. This was certainly raised by the noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Hannay. I will just give a brief answer. The UK is delivering: we are committed and are delivering on our commitment on £11.6 billion, which was made at the international climate finance forum, to support the most vulnerable who are experiencing the worst impacts of climate change. We will triple our funding for adaptation from £500 million in 2019 to £1.5 billion in 2025. We have also committed to investing at least £3 billion of this ICF into the development of solutions that protect and restore nature. I hope that helps.
Let me set out how we will use ODA, a subject which was certainly raised by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. In a world where global co-operation, including on trade, technology and regulations, is under threat, more than ever we need to remember to prioritise ODA. This means protecting ODA for those in the poorest countries, and those in most need of support, while multiplying our impact by drawing on private investment. Our international development offer goes beyond how we spend ODA as a catalyst for development. It is also about closer trading partnerships, improved global governance, fairer international rules, and access to expertise and technology. We are using our overseas network to work for more equitable international rules and standards. This approach is not only effective but delivers benefits to the UK: strengthening our global influence, bringing greater resilience to our supply chains, and helping to protect against future global shocks.
I will now move to the big question raised by so many Peers this afternoon: the return to 0.7%. While it is clear that we can remain a global leader in development, I reconfirm our commitment to returning to spending 0.7% of gross national income on ODA once the fiscal situation allows. Our principles provide a clear measure for our return to 0.7% and underline the Government’s commitment to this target. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, put it well—I listened carefully to what he said—when he talked about rebuilding discrete development capacity and expertise. He cited an important word: predictability. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, I think, added to that by using the word consistency. Of course, he is right: we want to get back to that point where we are regarded in these respects.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, asked a question which I did not initially have the answer to, but I think I may have now, which was on how often conditions for returning to 0.7% were met. According to the OBR, the UK would have met the fiscal test for a return to 0.7% for all three years prior to the pandemic: 2016-17 through to 2018-19 onwards. I hope that helps.
Just to add to that, though, the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, raised this point. In saying that the Government remain committed to debt falling, balancing the current budget and returning to 0.7% when the fiscal circumstances allow, fiscal tests to determine a return to 0.7% were confirmed by Parliament in summer 2021. The Treasury will provide updates, as I think the House will know, on the implications of future forecasts on the return to 0.7%. We will return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA when, on a sustainable basis, the Government are no longer borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt is falling. Before somebody asks how we define “sustainable basis”, I should say that, when reviewing fiscal forecasts, the Government will have to consider whether improvements in the fiscal situation are sustainable. It would not make sense to increase ODA spending when the tests are only forecast to be met for reasons which are unlikely to continue in future years. Given uncertainties in the fiscal outlook, ensuring tests are met on a sustainable basis will ensure that the Government have space to account for fiscal and forecast risks in their assessment of the fiscal situation.
There are a number of other questions which I may try to answer. Let me start with a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on the voluntary national review. The UK’s first VNR, in 2019, provided a comprehensive account of actions being taken across the UK by government, and other actions. No decision has been made about a follow-up to the 2019 VNR—that may not help him—but the Government remain fully supportive of the sustainable development goal. He asked also about an explicit target for looking at conflict and its prevention. This year, bilateral allocations will be decided by experts on the ground who have been empowered to determine, with our partners, which programmes to continue in line with the IDS, prioritising humanitarian and women and girls work where possible.
I am aware that time is moving on. There are questions that I am yet to answer, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on ODA and HIV, and I am certainly going to write to him with the answer, which I do actually have here. I have an answer for the question about dengue fever raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans; I think it is better to put that in writing. I will also answer the question about charities raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington; again, I think it is best to put that in a letter.
The UK remains one of the largest donors of official development assistance in the world. We magnify the impact of our budget in a number of ways: we attract funding from other donors and investors, we spend smartly on innovative expert-led projects with a wide reach, and we focus where we can have the most impact and positive effect on peoples’ lives. I cite our actions in Syria, where we provided some 182,000 people with drinking water and 153,000 pupils with access to formal education last year.
With the international development strategy—so important as a guiding hand—our spending decisions, our partnerships, and our expertise and professionalism will continue to reinforce our position as a development leader.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Northover for allowing this debate to happen, and to have had the privilege of introducing it. It has been an extremely good debate, not surprisingly because there is a great deal of expertise and specialist knowledge in the House, which has been brought to bear. The Minister will be aware of the frustration, and indeed the underlying anger, of the situation we are in, but I am grateful to him for answering questions, including my own.
I am left with a continuing worry that open-ended commitment to refugees makes it impossible to have predictable development spending, and I urge the Minister to take—specifically to the Prime Minister—the need to understand that. There has to be some protection or ring-fencing of the budget, otherwise it is impossible to start to rebuild our reputation. The Minister would have taken on board that there is a will for that to happen. There is a belief that with Andrew Mitchell, and to some extent the Chancellor, there is a possibility to start reversing the damage done, and the House wants that to happen. But I hope the Minister will understand that there are some vital constraints that need to be addressed, otherwise the pious expectations cannot be delivered, and people cannot plan programmes without the possibility of predictability and continuity. That point has been made in different ways across the House by noble Lords who have their own degree of expertise.
We are all grateful to have had the opportunity to have this debate. We are going to want to continue the debate and I am grateful to the Minister for answering the questions he did, and for agreeing to write to those whose questions he did not answer.
NHS and Social Care Workers
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Allan of Hallam
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support public sector workers in the NHS and the social care sectors, given reports of staff shortages and the effects of inflation on NHS and care budgets.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, it is clearly very timely that we are able to have this debate today, when the concerns of staff in the NHS are making the headlines. It follows a series of exchanges on related questions during the week. It may appear to the Minister that I am acting as something of an understudy to my noble friend Lady Brinton. If so, that is a correct impression as I hope to take over her position as the Front-Bench spokesperson from the new year, assuming that I pass muster today and am not fired before I start the job. Before I get on to my substantive remarks, I should declare a non-financial interest as a director of a not-for-profit called the Centre for Public Data, as I will touch on relevant issues during my comments.
I will start by talking about nurses’ pay. I will not rehash the arguments we have had through the week. The Minister has made his case for leaving decisions to the independent NHS Pay Review Body—I have read its report and it is certainly very thorough—but I ask him to reflect on whether this process works at a time of extraordinary inflation. I think it is correct to say that inflation is now higher than at any time during the review body’s existence; the last time we were close to this was in the early 1990s.
The Minister has argued that nurses can make their case for a rise that reflects the inflation we have had this year, during the next review process that will start in early 2023. That may indeed, and we hope it will, lead to a meaningful uplift in pay for 2023-24, but it will still leave nurses facing huge increases in the cost of living now, with the next award still some way off.
In a normal year of 2% or 3% inflation, people can carry those increased costs in the expectation of a later pay rise, but that will clearly be much harder for them when price rises are in the double digits and there is no prospect that they will come down across the board. It seems reasonable to look at whether the independent pay review process needs a mechanism that can be triggered in such exceptional circumstances; otherwise, the risk is that staff will feel that they cannot wait for pay to catch up with prices, that they will leave the service and that this will make the staff shortages that are the subject of this debate even worse. As staff shortages get worse, conditions get worse for those who remain.
On the social care side of the equation, I know that the Minister is acutely aware of the knock-on effects of there being too few places in social care for people who should be coming out of hospital. We have discussed that in Questions about the ambulance crisis—another thing that is coming to a head over the next few weeks and months.
It is just over a year since the Government published their strategy for reforming social care on 10 December 2021, but since then we have had two new Prime Ministers and seen major planks of that strategy jettisoned along the way. Yet the problems remain acute and are in need of long-term reform and commitments, just as they were in 2021.
I hope the Minister can shed more light today on how the Government intend to ensure that there are sufficient social care places, and especially how they can do this when local authority budgets are being squeezed and the care home providers face increased costs, all of which tends towards fewer rather than more social care places being available. The Health and Social Care Committee in another place estimated that we will need another 490,000 social care jobs by the early 2030s—all this while we are not even filling the current vacancies.
A key further element in the Government’s approach to improving NHS staffing is their new commitment to publish a long-term workforce plan. This has been widely welcomed, particularly the fact that the Government have committed to it being independently verified.
In that context, I encourage the Minister to consider two aspects of the plan in order to make it as useful as possible. First, it should be as rich and granular as possible in the data it provides on the workforce, so that groups who are interested in particular conditions can see what is happening in their area of interest. For example, Parkinson’s UK has been in touch, flagging that it finds it hard to understand the level of filled and vacant posts for staff specialising in the care of people with Parkinson’s. There is current data available from NHS Digital, but it does not have the granularity needed. It is a common complaint that, once you aggregate data or spread things out in averages, you often lose sight of the most important information. Knowing that there is a 10% average vacancy rate in a particular region is not especially helpful if there is a 30% vacancy rate in the area of concern. I hope the Minister is able to commit, in that process of workforce planning, to publishing as much granular data as possible.
Secondly, it is important that full datasets are made publicly available and regularly updated for that independent scrutiny to take place. The more that people are able to look at the data, the more robust the plan will become. NHS Digital has been publishing useful staffing data and releasing this under the open government licence, so that other people can reuse it. This model should be further developed as part of the workforce strategy, adding the projections that the Government are going to make and any other data that is being collected and used within the strategy. Transparency of this kind can be painful for a Government as people will query or challenge their data and models, but that pain will lead to improvement over time.
The final area I want to raise in this short debate is the tools that we provide to NHS and social care staff. This is a particular passion of mine, as I spent several happy years working for the NHS in the early part of my career, implementing information technology systems. Back then, we were plagued by major IT system failures—none of the systems I built were in that category, I might add. An excuse often used was that the size and scale of the NHS meant that it needed bigger and more complex systems than anyone else’s.
Fast-forward to 2022, and we can see that many services are operating at much greater scale than the NHS is today, and they are using tools that are fast and extremely user-friendly. When done well, IT systems make life easier for workers but, when done badly, they add to their stress and perceived workload. There are still too many instances of this latter effect in the NHS. In her article in the Guardian last week, Tara Porter described how poor IT meant that she ended up seeing fewer, not more, patients. This was a significant factor in the decision that she took to leave the NHS as a psychologist, after more than two decades working in the service.
I venture to quote Aldous Huxley in his 1946 introduction to Brave New World. He called for a world in which:
“Science and technology would be used as though, like the Sabbath, they had been made for man, not … as though man were to be adapted and enslaved to them.”
This maxim is well worth bearing in mind as we rightly continue to introduce new technology into health and social care. It should work for staff and patients, making their lives easier and improving outcomes; they should not end up feeling like they are working for the machines.
To conclude, I hope the Minister can reflect on the genuine problem of pay rises lagging behind living costs in times of extraordinary inflation. I would like to hear more about the Government’s current thinking on the long-term strategy for social care, after the recent chopping and changing we have seen since it was published. I hope that he can assure us that rich data will be made publicly available through the new workforce strategy so that others can independently verify it, and indeed do their own modelling. I do not expect him to have any quick fixes on the information technology solutions as this is such a long-running saga within the health service, but I look forward to engaging with him on this and other issues over the coming months.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, for raising this issue today. As he says, this debate is extremely timely. I have to say that I am a bit surprised and disappointed that so few speakers have signed up for this debate. It is obviously for noble Lords to make their own decisions about which issues they wish to raise, but this one is crucial. You only have to look at the front pages of today’s newspapers to realise how important this is.
There is a whole range of issues that could be raised in discussing these issues; I will focus on just two. That is in no way intended to diminish the importance of other issues. As a veteran of the long-lost and unlamented healthcare Bill, I am glad mention was made of the workforce plan. There was a whole debate then in which the Government were resistant to introducing a workforce plan, but it has suddenly become a priority for them. Maybe there is a case there that they need to listen.
The first of the two issues I will focus on is pay in general, and because today is today, I will talk about nurses’ pay. Secondly, I am going to take this opportunity to talk about pensions in the National Health Service and, in particular, the impact of taxation rules, particularly the annual allowance and the lifetime allowance, on employment in the NHS. When I first thought of contributing to this debate, I thought I would have less time and would focus on just that issue. However, now I have the luxury of 10 minutes, I have expanded my remarks.
First, pay is an issue across the whole service. All workers within the National Health Service have seen problems with their pay and the need for action to be taken to overcome the clear requirement to sort out the problems that we face. I do not think there is any question that there are big problems and that sorting out pay is a crucial element in resolving them. It is not the only answer, but it is the one I am focusing on today.
In particular, I am focusing on nursing, where we have compelling figures: there are 47,496 nursing vacancies. No doubt the Government will tell us that they have increased the number of nurses, but there is still a horrendous level of nursing vacancies. Over 7 million people are waiting for treatment in the National Health Service, and there are 363,000 people who are out of work because of long-term illness. So, pay is one of the direct measures to address those issues. I hope the Minister will say that he recognises that, even though the Government believe that they are under various constraints. The issue, therefore, is not about whether we can afford to meet the demands that have been made for improved pay; the issue is, with the problems faced by the health service, can we afford not to sort out pay?
To be clear, I support the nurses’ demand for a significant pay rise, achieved through collective bargaining. The Government cannot hide behind the independent pay review process because it is clearly broken. I will not undertake a full analysis of the pay review process today, but sticking the word “independent” into a phrase does not make it independent. The Government appoint the members of the pay review body and issue a remit letter that sets out what they can do. It is no criticism of the members of the pay review body to say that this is not a truly independent process: they have to play the cards that they are dealt.
The nurses’ action today—the fact that they are on strike—is a clear indication of the gravity of the problem. CPIH, the agreed appropriate prices index, has increased by about 33% since 2010. Private sector earnings have gone up faster than that, by something like 40%, providing a real-terms increase. Public sector pay in general has gone up by a lesser amount: it has gone up by only 28%, which is a 5% real reduction. Within that, the nurses have done particularly badly, with an increase of under 20%. So there has been a real-terms reduction of over 10% over the last 12 years. One can only admire their moderation in seeking to recover only half of that fall in real terms. A similar case can be made for other groups of employees within the health service, but the Government have to recognise that the way to see this issue resolved is to accept the RCN’s request for direct negotiations. The so-called independent pay review process is just not working any more.
On pensions, a consultation is of course currently under way, and the Government say that this will
“retain more experienced NHS clinicians and remove barriers to staff returning from retirement.”
This is actually the Government’s second go at this issue: some regulations have already gone through, but we will have a debate, which I am looking forward to, with the Minister early in the new year on the previous set of regulation changes—and now we are going to get a different set, following a period of consultation. Unfortunately, my regret Motion on the first set still stands. They will be insufficient to address fully the problems with staff retention in the NHS arising from the NHS pension arrangements that the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee described in its report last autumn as a “national scandal”. The committee was of course chaired by the current Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Given that we will have another debate, and probably further debates on further regulations, I will spare the House a full discussion of this issue—I do not have enough time for that in any event. The issues are complicated, but they are explained on the BMA website, and I invite noble Lords and noble Baronesses to see what the issues are. I admit that, in the regulations currently under consultation, the Government do address one particular issue about the mismatch of the CPI on various indices—but that was not the only problem, and they do not propose to address one of the worst problems. So I am using this opportunity to focus the Minister’s mind on this issue, which we will return to. I hope that he will perhaps give us a commitment today that he will take the issue seriously and take part in further discussions.
Lord Bird (CB)
It is wonderful that we get the chance to discuss this very serious matter. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that it is pity that so few Peers wanted to participate in the debate. I am sure they are all busy because it is Christmas and there are lots of things to do; God bless them all, whatever they are doing.
About five years ago, after I first came into the House, I really cheesed off a number of doctors. I know that because, in response to a Question on the lack of doctors, I made the observation that the problem was not that we did not have enough doctors, but that we had too many patients. My noble friend Lord Crisp, who is a mate of mine now, said that he does not go for those supply-side arguments—I did not even know what he meant, but I could understand that he was cheesed off with me. One of the big problems is that we have a health service—which includes nurses, in particular; a subject I would like to talk about, because I have known loads of them—that is always finding it very difficult to make ends meet.
Before I talk about that, I will address prevention. In fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who sits on the Front Bench as Education Minister, made a very interesting point in an Oral Question on Tuesday: she said that she visited a school where they had taken the kitchen and moved it into the classroom. I thought that that was absolutely brilliant, because most of the young people I know—I have five children, so I have been through this—eat crap. By eating rubbish, they are laying down problems for later life. I have eaten more crap than anybody, but, for some strange reason, I am still here at 76 and everything seems to be working, so I might be the exception that proves the rule.
The idea of moving food, in a revolutionary way, into the classroom so that children can see the science of eating and of making and keeping themselves happy was great to news to me, because I am a preventionist. I came into the House of Lords to get rid of poverty, not to make the poor a little more comfortable. I keep telling people that, some of whom have said that they are irritated by it, but I will keep saying it. Unfortunately, there are too many people in the system who are concerned with keeping the poor more comfortable. I will return to the point: the idea of educating our children so that they know the importance of food and what food does to the body is of incredible importance. I would like the National Health Service to live up to its actual name, rather than becoming a national “I’ll get you back to health” service.
I was around in the early days of the NHS. I remember all the exercises we had to do in the playground, organised by public health bodies, and the capsules and the milk. I also remember that about 20% of the NHS budget in that post-war period was for prevention, because it did not have enough money. So I am very interested in the idea of prevention and will stick with it again and again.
What has happened to the NHS, more than at any other time in its history, since 2010 onwards, when we had to pay off the bankers’ mistakes by buying the banks and passing the cost on to the poorest among us? The NHS has become an even bigger social sponge, soaking up the contradiction thrown up by people in poverty. The BMA admits that 50% of the people who present themselves with cardiac arrest are suffering from food poverty. So what happened during the 2010 to 2016 coalition—sorry about that, mates—was that the nature of the NHS changed, and more and more parts of it were about trying to keep alive people who were eating poor and living poor. If we look at the facts and figures, when we entered the Covid crisis, hospitals were 85% full. That is almost full, because you need 10% to play around with. A lot of that was because more and more poor people were making their way to the hospital and the doctor’s surgery. They were trying to make up for the fact that they had become ill and could not maintain their lifestyle, because they were on the edge of poverty.
There is another big issue, which is the problem with the Treasury. No Treasury since the Second World War has got behind nurses in the way it should have got behind them—and hospital cleaners, porters and all the other people who make a hospital run. The principal reason for that is this myopia in the absolute middle of the Treasury. It divides the world between the public good and the people who contribute, and the contributors are the fintech people in the City of London who put money into the Treasury. Then there are the people who work for the public good and public life, and they are always going to be treated in a cheaper way, because the Government will not stand up and say that there is an enormous value that echoes throughout the whole of society if we pay our nurses, hospital cleaners and workers as well as doctors. We must embrace the idea that public service, whether that is driving a train, climbing up a ladder when there is a fire or working in a hospital—all these people are in public life. They are not takers, they are givers. I find it very difficult when I see the way we divide the world between those who take and those who give. It is not true at all.
We know that one of the big problems with the NHS is that it is too full. What if we had made the investment, if Governments of all political persuasions after the Second World War had said, “We are going to have a war on poverty. We are going to destroy poverty.”? Some 40% of all the money spent by government is spent on trying to get away from the problems thrown up by poverty. Our poor nurses are at the sharp end and are underappreciated; they are unable to pay their own way; they cannot breathe. The Royal College of Nursing said recently that nurses are suffering because their heating and food bills are rising, and they are being hit in the same way as everybody else.
I would like the Government to stop and to look at what works and what does not work. I have been saying this to Governments since I came here. I want them to stop, look and say, “How can we change this?”, rather than giving us a very small amount here and there. I want them to end this situation where the heroines of our hospitals are now being described as antisocial, whereas once they were social.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who speaks as he finds. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allan, on bringing this important debate to your Lordships’ House at such a crucial time. Just this week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies published a report that found that, even though the NHS has more staff on the payroll today than it did in 2019—something I am sure the Minister will want to remind us about—it is, however, treating fewer patients and backlogs are at a record high. I hope the Minister will offer some explanations as to why this is so when he comes to speak.
We know there is a recruitment and retention crisis across the NHS and social care sector, and on the day, as noble Lords have referred to, that nurses are taking unprecedented industrial action, it is worth reflecting on Health Foundation estimates that have found that, at the current rate of exodus from the workforce, by 2030-31 there will be a shortfall of 140,600 full-time nurses. On the point of nurses’ pay, which has been raised today by noble Lords including my noble friend Lord Davies, I raise with the Minister his reply TO a question I put yesterday, when he said:
“we have always followed the recommendations of the independent pay review body, as Governments of all colours have done since 1984.”—[Official Report, 14/12/22; col. 664.]
Will he review this assertion and come back to the House? To raise just one example, Chancellor George Osborne took the decision to override the public review body’s recommendation and put a freeze on all public sector pay. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on this point.
More broadly, with health and care staff well-being at an all-time low, and bearing in mind that the NHS lost more than 500,000 days to poor mental health in August alone, and the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, about the importance of the prevention of ill health—something I very much agree with—how will the Government seek to tackle the root causes of absence due to poor mental health in our NHS and social care sector?
As the noble Lord, Lord Allan, and other noble Lords have said, for the past two years Ministers have promised us that a workforce strategy is coming. When will that actually be before us? As my noble friend Lord Davies reminded us, the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, repeatedly promised, when we were discussing the Health and Care Act, that work was under way, it was all in hand and we did not need legislation to make it happen. Indeed, the Minister himself has repeatedly promised that the workforce plan will be coming soon, so perhaps we can hear some more facts. When will we know the timetable for publication and implementation? Will there be a formal consultation process? I know the Minister will understand that commissioners need to plan, and staff and patients need reassurance. So, when will this House and stakeholders see the timelines? How comprehensive will the plan be and, most importantly of all, will it be costed and fully funded? It really is time that we had some answers and some concrete dates for publication.
The two pillars of health and social care are inextricably linked. Social care is not just an add-on to NHS workforce needs, as we see from these alarming figures: there are 13,500 people who are in hospital as we speak and medically fit to leave but cannot be discharged, because of the lack of home and community support, particularly in domiciliary and care homes. We know that we have a problem before us. The backlog of social care assessments, estimated by ADASS at 500,000, means delayed assessments for people in need and their carers, and not enough funding or staffing to carry out these assessments or to ensure that the right support is available and can be provided and delivered. This means that people are taking up bed spaces and are in the wrong place, when they should be in their homes and in the community.
Worryingly, the latest NHS figures show that over 145,000 people in England have died while waiting for social care over the past five years. This is a very bad state of affairs, so can the Minister say why the £500 million promised some time ago to help support hospital discharge is being paid out only this month and next? As I and other noble Lords have repeatedly raised in this Chamber, why has there been delay when there is such an imperative for immediate action?
We know that care workers are paid poverty wages and leaving in droves; there are currently 165,000 vacancies in the social care sector. How will the Minister be encouraging people to join the sector? Will there be encouragement for existing care workers to stay when they face a lack of decent standards, fair pay and proper training?
On the matter of social care, I take this opportunity to commend the excellent report from your Lordships’ special Adult Social Care Committee, so ably chaired by my noble friend Lady Andrews. I hope the Minister will read the report carefully, if he has not done so already, as we will be pressing strongly for a full debate in your Lordships’ House as urgently as possible in the new year. When will the Government’s response be ready and published?
The report warns that the continued invisibility of the adult social care sector is damaging both to people who need social care and to the unpaid carers who provide care at a time of increasing need, rising costs and a shrinking workforce. There is also the failure of improved carer support and payment for vital care workers. If only all these absences could be put right, they could be the key to getting the extra staffing in place that is so desperately needed.
I want to ask the Minister about another authoritative report, which was actually commissioned by the Government. It is an academic research paper from the independent think tank the King’s Fund on tackling the NHS’s 7 million—the number who are waiting for care. This is a devasting report, warning that a “decade of neglect” by successive Conservative Administrations has weakened the NHS to the point that it will not be able to tackle the backlog. The King’s Fund reports that years of denying funding to the health service and the failure to address its growing workforce crisis has left it with too few staff, too little equipment and too many outdated and poorly maintained buildings to perform the amount of work that is needed. How do the Government respond to the findings of the very report that they commissioned?
Finally, just yesterday, 33 months after the World Health Organization declared Covid-19 to be a pandemic, the Guardian newspaper spent 33 hours inside the NHS, reporting from inside a hospital, an ambulance service, a pharmacy and a GP surgery. When responding to what turned out to be yet another exposé of how bad 33 hours on the front line of the NHS can be, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine’s president said that the single biggest issue exposed
“was the struggle to discharge medically fit patients”.
When we hear this from the lead emergency medicine doctor in the country—a cry for urgent action to bring reinforcements to the creaking health and care workforce—how will the Minister respond to that call?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I thank noble Lords. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Allan, for introducing the debate. I look forward to working with him, just as I have enjoyed working with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton—I hope he does pass muster. I am pleased to respond to this Question for Short Debate on the steps we are taking to support the NHS and social care workforce. We all agree that this is an important issue and that we are all indebted to the people who work tirelessly in our health and care services.
Helping the health and social care workforce manage their mental health and well-being is important and we are committed to helping staff recover. That is why we encourage adult social care providers to invest in mental health and well-being services for their staff. The NHS People Plan and the NHS People Promise set out a comprehensive range of actions to prioritise staff well-being. Boards, leaders, non-exec directors and managers across the NHS are being asked specifically to consider the health and well-being of all their staff as a priority.
As the winter approaches, we know that the system has not rested over the summer. It has been fighting the pandemic for years and we know the drain that that has caused. We know that this winter, with rising cases of Covid and flu, we are putting more pressures on staff, alongside the pressures of the cost of living. We understand those pressures and the need to support the workforce. I will try to answer some of the questions more directly later, but we understand the need for the £500 million fund to help with discharge and workforce support.
We understand the importance of pay in making people feel looked after in what they do. We have accepted the recommendations of the latest independent pay review body in full. I apologise if I made a mistake. I thank the noble Baroness for kindly and gently putting that forward. I will go away and make sure I correct that. I thank her again for the way that was put forward.
We have given more than 1 million non-medical NHS workers a pay rise of at least £1,400 this year, which is equivalent to 4% to 5%. We deeply regret that some feel the need to take industrial action despite that. I will address the specific questions on the pay review and the impact of inflation later.
This is more difficult with care workers, because they are paid by people outside our control, so to speak. Our only hope is that with around 70% of the total payments in this area going to wages, the £2.8 billion and £4.7 billion of additional funding will find their way into the pockets of the people who need it. That is something we will encourage. At the end of the day, if you cannot recruit and motivate a workforce, you will not have the care you need—it is simple.
Alongside looking after our staff, we know that demands on the NHS and social care are increasing. Expanding the workforce has to be a priority. While the numbers are increasing—I will not repeat the statistics I often give out—we know we need to do more in this space.
I may be going a little off-piste here, but I think we can be more creative and flexible in the way we do that. I do not think we are making enough use of apprenticeships and other routes in. I give the example of my mother, who left school at 15 with no qualifications, became a mother with three kids and then, in her 30s, found a way into nursing, first as an SEN—an easy entry path—and then as an SRN. Eventually, she became a midwife and worked for more than 20 years in the health service. We need more of those sorts of routes.
Would it not be great if we had a modular system so that a person working at a dentist’s for two years could qualify as a dental nurse? Instead of working in Wetherspoons for most of their training, their part-time work could be in that profession, using and honing their skills. Would it not be great if a dental nurse who was good at their job knew that their qualifications were part of the way towards becoming a dentist? The team is looking at those modular systems in terms of that flexibility. Training and development is clearly a key part. We are funding more places. In the nurse space, it is not limited. There are more than 70,000 nurses in training as part of that, but clearly the workforce plan needs to set out whether we need to be doing more in this space.
I know that we all welcome the workforce plan and I appreciate the comments from all Members of the House, particularly those opposite, that have for a long time been, quite rightly, that we need to do it. I think that we are all pleased that we are doing it. I completely accept the need to ensure that it is detailed enough to be useful, for want of a better word, and that it needs to be iterative, which will involve other people. I understand that such transparency brings pain, because you have inputs from other people who do not always agree with you. However, you get a better product at the end of it. I am afraid that I cannot give more information on a timetable yet, but I will press for more information.
I accept that inflation makes annual pay reviews more difficult. That is the problem with inflation. We have tried to make exceptions for the nurses in the past. Offering what I hope is a sensible view, as we were saying in the debate yesterday, April is not that long away. If we could expedite a process for the independent pay review body, maybe that would be a sensible way forward, where people feel that there is recognition of the impact that inflation has. Sometimes inflation can mean that you need quicker answers than you might normally expect.
On the social care space and the long-term strategy, I know that Minister Whately is very focused on this, to an amazing degree of detail, and on the impact of that £500 million fund and the results. I accept that it took a while to get that money out, and I partially take the blame. We wanted to ensure that it was going out in the right places, which took a bit more time. I hope and expect it to have been worth that time to ensure that it is targeted in the right place. That £500 million is the first instalment, with up to £2.8 billion next year, particularly in the places that work.
I know that it is a favourite thing for the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to bring quotes to the Chamber. I liked this one, and look forward to hearing more, particularly as Aldous Huxley is one of my favourite authors. Clearly, we need to make science and technology work for the NHS and not the other way round. On the point around productivity and the IFS, candidly, a lot of that is down to poor systems and the work that must be done to improve that, as the IFS rightly states. We are looking to address these things through the estates programme and the £10 billion per year capital spend, which is a big increase on previous years. In some areas, productivity has gone backwards, but in many areas it has not. We must understand what conditions are enabling us to increase productivity and how we can use that to help those areas that are not as productive as before to catch up and overtake.
I will try to answer some of the other questions. On pensions, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned, there will be a further debate on this in the new year. It is a serious issue that, let us face it, we need a solution for, because we know it means that people are voting with their feet and leaving the service. Clearly, we need a solution to it all. It is something that we are taking seriously, with detailed work. We can discuss it further in the new year.
I have to admire the passion for prevention in the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Bird. One of the pleasures of this job is sharing an office with, or being fairly close to, Chris Whitty, and seeing many of the things that he brings such intelligence and value to. If you speak to him about prevention, he will talk about his concern right now for those people who missed out on heart checks—the 50 to 65 year-old cohort who did not have a heart check during Covid. That is one of the things that needs to be high up the list of the things to address in the prevention agenda.
On the other points, I will need to give the noble Baroness some more detail in writing on the findings of the report she mentioned. Given that we are running out of time, as ever, I will provide a detailed response to anything I have not managed to cover.
In conclusion, I again thank noble Lords. I agree with the sentiment that it would have been nice to have had a lot more contributions, but through this programme of work, including by supporting care employers and commissioners, we are helping to build the robust and resilient workforce the NHS and social care systems need for the future. We are working to ensure that the country has the right people, with the right skills and in the right places, and that they are well supported and looked after so that they can in turn look after those who need our great NHS and social services.
Arts Council England: Regional Distribution of Funding
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
That this House takes note of the regional distribution of Arts Council England funding and its impact on regions outside of London.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord McNally for securing this debate. I am sure that the House hopes that he will recover from Covid quickly. I also thank the Government Whips’ Office for being so understanding.
In the late 1960s and 1970s, Liverpool city’s logo was “City of Change and Challenge”. It was very much the era of tearing down and starting again, not always for the better. During this period, the Everyman Theatre was born, embodied by the enormous talents of Martin Jenkins, subsequently to become a leading BBC drama producer, Terry Hands, later to become an associate of the RSC, and Peter James, who, after opening the new Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, went on to the Lyric Hammersmith. Those early days for the theatre were confined to Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The entire theatre personnel were always involved in final preparations for a production: sawing, laying wires, painting and everything needed for the opening night of a show.
Despite its burgeoning reputation, the theatre continued to lead a hand-to-mouth existence for several years before Arts Council funding made it secure. Its presence on Hope Street, along with the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, led to a cultural renaissance of the area, which, thanks to Arts Council funding, has seen this once deprived community grow from strength to strength. It is now called the Georgian Quarter of the city and overflows with venues and restaurants. Importantly, it is a centre for the arts, because as well as the Everyman and the Philharmonic there is the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts and the Unity Theatre—all thanks to the initial Arts Council funding. Art can and does regenerate communities.
In the 1970s, Prescot, a small town on Merseyside, saw huge job losses at the Pilkington glass manufacturer and British Insulated Callender’s Cables. Both major industries closed down and moved overseas. Over the years, Prescot has slowly declined. Now, it is the theatre that is coming to the rescue of the community, with the Shakespeare North Playhouse, the Prescot Shakespeare theatre of the north, having opened. Arts Council funding will be crucial as the theatre becomes part of the regeneration story of that community.
So the issue of regional distribution of Arts Council England funding touches on two different but equally significant matters. First, there is the economic factor of granting places other than London their fair share of opportunities for growth and development. From this perspective, cultural institutions constitute powerful engines of economic growth, which they are more than capable of being. Secondly, there is the cultural factor. Historically, as Darren Henley, the chief executive officer of Arts Council England, admitted, cities other than London have been underserved in this regard. The concentration of cultural investment in London results in the creation of a kind of black hole, siphoning creative industries, talent and institutions from around the United Kingdom into the capital.
Both those perspectives reveal the decades-old practice of neglect that results in many cities suffering from a cultural deficit, denying them the prestige and economic rewards of successful artistic institutions. Worse still, this means that hundreds of thousands of people, particularly those who are underprivileged or living on tighter budgets, have virtually no opportunity to access arts and benefit from them. That is a serious problem. Study after study shows that interaction with the arts positively influences people’s mental health, helps with depression and anxiety, and builds bridges between cultures and worldviews. In other words, it is a vital part of the existence of a civilised society, and no one should be denied it.
The current disparities between the capital and other cities and between the wealthy and the underprivileged can be resolved only locally through education; by teaching young people how to enjoy the arts, helping them to develop the tenderness needed to do so, and assisting them in the recovery of the wealth of experience waiting behind the doors of theatres, operas, philharmonics, museums and galleries. However, in order to do so, such places must first exist within reach of those people, which in many cities and towns is simply not the case. For that reason, I very much welcome Arts Council England’s decision to increase funding granted to artistic organisations outside London, as well as its encouragement for London-based organisations to relocate to less culturally overserved cities. That is a much-needed policy change and will help to address some of the most pressing inequalities in our country.
At the same time, it is incredibly important that this historic change is carried out carefully and prudently. It is a fact that decades of preferential treatment made London one of the most culturally and artistically fascinating places in Europe, and indeed in the world. It is a source of immense soft power, an economic and creative powerhouse, and the pride of our country. We must ensure that levelling up does not come at the cost of defunding high-quality arts in our capital city, which would result in London lagging behind other European capitals. Rather, its wealth of expertise and talent should be leveraged to support other cities in developing their own cultural industries, not sacrificed on the altar of misunderstood equality.
It has been said many times in this Chamber, but perhaps it needs to be repeated once again, that, in levelling up, we want to help other regions to develop and grow, not to drag London down just because it is simpler to do so. Unfortunately, it appears that Arts Council England’s latest funding allocations have partially fallen victim to the easier version of levelling up. Such cuts come at the worst time, as the creative sector’s recovery continues to be hampered by soaring costs due to the cost-of-living crisis. Take, for example, the funding of £17 million that has been allocated to move English National Opera. That amount is far from what is needed to undertake a relocation on this scale, let alone to invest in and improve on the existing infrastructure. In effect, it is removing funding from the ENO and forcing it to move out of London at a few weeks’ notice, with no consultation or concrete plan for the transition. Arts Council England seems to pursue an oversimplified vision that lets it use a narrative of “levelling up” without doing any real long-term work to make it succeed in practice.
It is true that most British cities need and deserve better access to opera, especially so since Arts Council England cut the funding of the Welsh National Opera and Glyndebourne touring, effectively cancelling two very successful undertakings that bring opera to people throughout England. At the same time, however, simply transplanting a 100 year-old institution with hundreds of employees from London to another city as a solution is not the best way to proceed.
If Manchester suffered from a deficit of green areas, would the Government propose to dig out a decades-old tree from Hyde Park and move it 160 miles north? Of course, it would be theoretically possible to do so, but it would also be ridiculously expensive and inefficient, and the tree in all likelihood would not survive the operation. The same can be said of English National Opera. It is firmly rooted in London, thriving in the ecosystem that was carefully cultivated for years and at the same time sustaining a symbiotic relationship with its audience. The very proposition to move it is controversial; to attempt to do so with virtually no preparation would be simply an act of lunacy.
What is more, without English National Opera, London will have just one major opera company, the Royal Opera House, which offers a different opera experience, perhaps at the luxury end of the market. Berlin and Paris each have three opera companies; Vienna has four. Not only does this mean fewer opportunities to engage with opera and art, but it threatens the jobs of over 600 skilled art workers, including musicians and technical and support staff, who are embedded in the wider London cultural scene. This reduces opportunities for new rising stars who, in turn, will be more likely to work abroad, and puts an already challenged industry at even greater risk.
I ask Arts Council England to reconsider its approach to operas, especially since it casts a shadow on an otherwise well-designed and much-needed set of proposals. The overall direction of the policy is most welcome, and I am very much looking forward to the long-term benefits that it will bring to our towns and cities. I only hope it will not come at the expense of some of the most accessible and progressive operas this country has known. Instead, I am hopeful that the steadfast support that they have received—with 77,000 people so far signing a petition—will be enough to convince Arts Council England, and indeed the Government, to reinstate the funding and continue their mission. I also hope that the expertise and experience of these institutions will be used to replicate their success, not lost in a misguided attempt to make funding distribution look more appealing on paper.
We are so fortunate in the UK to have such a wealth of world-leading arts institutions They are good for the soul of the nation, they sustain a burgeoning creative arts sector and they can lead to the regeneration of whole communities. I remember how, when Liverpool won European Capital of Culture in 2008, it was the rocket fuel to drive the city economically and culturally forward. Arts Council England needs always to ensure that the rocket fuel is distributed equitably and fairly.
Lord Mendoza (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register but, to give a little more detail, I have been an adviser at DCMS for the last six years. I started as a non-executive director and am now the commissioner for culture. I sit on a whole variety of different boards, panels and committees, and meet regularly with arm’s-length bodies, including the Arts Council. I should also add that I am on the board of the Ashmolean Museum at the University of Oxford, which is an Arts Council NPO.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for securing this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for setting out the argument so clearly. We had an excellent debate on this subject last week, which I read in Hansard. An enormous amount was covered, and it was very clear that everybody felt equally about the importance of culture, the enormous amount of talent and skills that we have in this country and how vital it is for the Government to intervene and have policies that take care of it.
In fact, it was only a few years ago, in 2016, that my noble friend Lord Vaizey launched the culture White Paper, which covered this really clearly. It covered all the different areas that government can get involved with, including looking after culture for its intrinsic value, beauty and joy and the excellence that it can bring to people around the country. It also looked at the power that culture has, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, to improve the economy of places and society’s health and well-being, as well as its importance in soft power and so on. I am very pleased that we are having a similar debate today; in fact, I hope that we will continue to have this debate.
One important example of cultural policy—cultural intervention, if you like—is Arts Council England’s national portfolio organisation round, which is the first one we have had for five years because the scheme was interrupted by Covid. I too welcome this policy. Of course, noble Lords will not like every single one of Arts Council England’s 1,700 decisions—there was a record number of applicants this time round—but, in my view, it has succeeded in coming up with an excellent portfolio.
I visit a lot of cultural organisations around the country. Wherever I go, I am normally joined by someone from one of our arm’s-length bodies. In every case, whether they are from Arts Council England, Historic England or the National Lottery Heritage Fund, they have such deep expertise and knowledge of towns, places, politics and cultural structure that I am often amazed. This portfolio was constructed by region and area councils, using a lot of information from applicants with deep local knowledge, and was ultimately approved by Arts Council England’s national council, on which my noble friend Lady Fleet sits. So it is very much a collective decision.
I am pleased with the portfolio, which includes quite a lot of vitality in the sense that it includes 276 new organisations for the very first time. London remains the biggest region funded by Arts Council England, but its funding outside London has increased by 22%, which is the general direction of travel that it has been moving in for some time. People often think that Arts Council England funds only the performing arts, but the range of organisations that it funds is much wider. It includes museums, literature, some heritage and so on; there is a lot of other material in there.
Some of my favourite organisations in this round include Mind the Gap, a wonderful organisation in Bradford—it is probably the leading one in the UK—that helps learning-disabled children in performance and the arts. It is an incredible organisation; its grant was increased by 25%. I am also a big fan of museums. A number of museums were in the portfolio for the first time, including Blackburn Museum and Art Gallery, Bradford Museums and Galleries and Rotherham Museum. Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums is a stalwart and is now the biggest museum NPO in the country. Another one of my favourites, to give noble Lords an idea of the variety here, is the North Yorkshire Moors Railway—also a new entrant in this round. It is an organisation responsible for 1,000 jobs, 1,000 volunteers and 300,000 visitors.
So, in my view, we have a very good portfolio. However, Arts Council NPO status is not a necessary condition for success. Last week, the Minister referred to the Culture Recovery Fund, through which we were able to award grants to more than 5,000 organisations—clearly many more than even applied to Arts Council England. There is a massive arts and culture economy out there and not all of it requires Arts Council NPO backing. Also, the portfolio will change again next time. In many ways, it is good that the portfolio changes and that organisations both come in and leave. It is an indicator of vitality and life, and an indicator that Arts Council England is alive to investing in new places, new areas and new people.
I want to explain to noble Lords that Arts Council England NPO funding is not the only cultural intervention that arm’s-length bodies—or government, for that matter—make. Over the past few years, since I have been at DCMS, there have been many extraordinary initiatives and projects that continue to help the Government invest in the cultural sector, which they see as extremely important, from some smaller interventions to larger ones.
For example, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to the European Capital of Culture. Our City of Culture programme is really successful. We have had Hull in recent years, Coventry has just finished and we are looking forward to Bradford in 2025. It looks as if there has been almost £700 million in investment into Hull over the last few years, partly as a result of that, and £173 million has gone into Coventry directly as a result of City of Culture. We know that, as the noble Lord said, in Liverpool it was the booster, the rocket that went under it. It is no accident that the Liverpool cultural sector represents 50% of the revenues into that city. I regularly meet the cultural director there, Claire McColgan, and organisations such as the Everyman, the Liverpool Phil, National Museums Liverpool and Liverpool Cathedral. It all comes together to make the place an incredibly lively whole.
We have also had the cultural investment fund, a £250 million manifesto commitment. We are halfway through giving out a number of grants, and in a recent round we gave out funds from DCMS for culture-related projects in Barnsley, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Stockport, Torbay, Middlesbrough and the Isle of Wight. I am trying to give noble Lords an impression of the other things going on in this area, levelling up the country and introducing regional fairness to cultural intervention. Historic England has a wonderful programme called high streets heritage action zones, through which it invests in places street by street, with 67 towns and cities receiving almost £100 million of government money.
Partly as a result of the pandemic, over the last few years there have been some very large interventions, such as the Culture Recovery Fund and the film and television restart fund, both approved by the then Chancellor and now Prime Minister. As a result of the film and television restart fund alone, during the pandemic film and television had a record year: £5.6 billion of spend around the country. We are looking forward to the announcement soon of the second round of the levelling-up fund, which I hope will include a large number of culture projects. Please look out for that over the next period.
I hope the Minister will agree with me that these sorts of cultural interventions are more important than ever, and it is more important than ever that distribution is fair to maximise the opportunity for people all over the country to experience culture and to work in these fast-growing sectors.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza—although, listening to him, I imagine many organisations feel, “Why are we worrying? Why are we upset by what has happened?” I hope to point out exactly why that might be.
I want to start by looking at this problem from the Government’s point of view. I am a fan of levelling up. I agree that we need to get more funds around the country, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, pointed out exactly the kind of things. In fact, from my experience as a composer—having worked with the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra, Opera North and festivals such as Aldeburgh, Bath and Presteigne—I realise what this brings to local communities. They always especially say, “I can’t get to London”, so it means even more to them. I can also see, from the Government’s point of view, how difficult it is to recut the cake and redistribute the money at this sort of level. I think the Arts Council made some serious errors; I will come to that in a moment, but I hope in a constructive way.
The background of Covid and Brexit, as mentioned in the debate last week that both noble Lords referenced, is a telling factor. A lot of these companies were on very tricky ground before the cuts were announced, so you have to add to that what this will mean. On the shop floor, I am hearing from organisations, orchestras, theatre companies and dance companies that—despite the reassurance given last week by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that work is being done to assist touring—they are very nervous about the prospect of affording touring because of the incredible complications and expense of sorting out visas.
I again ask the Minister a question that he must be bored with hearing me ask, so I apologise. Given that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who represented the Government in these negotiations, has admitted that the Government got this wrong, why will they not put it right? Nobody is saying we are going to cancel Brexit—I realise that is not a possibility—but fine-tuning must be possible. I get the sense that there are people in Downing Street who would like that, but I dare say they are up against those who will not give an inch as far as Brexit is concerned. That is something the entire creative industry would love to see, and I do not think it too big an ask.
In some senses, in order to rob Peter to pay Paul, we have robbed them both. On many occasions in this House, I have commended the help that Rishi Sunak gave the creative industries, and I reiterate how grateful we were for that. But it seems crazy that the future of some of those big organisations, which received large amounts of money, is now in doubt because we are going to take such large amounts back. That surely has to be looked at.
On touring, I was on the Arts Council committee that identified areas of the country that were underprovided for in terms of opera. We came up with a list. The problem is that these cuts undo some of the very work that the Arts Council did. Glyndebourne Touring and the Welsh National Opera go to the places we identified. There has to be a continued line of thinking here.
I come to one or two of the other groups that have suffered. Here is an example of what we might do: why did the Arts Council not talk to the ENO, without uprooting it to Manchester? Anybody who has worked in an opera house—I was on the board of the Royal Opera House and have written three operas—will tell you that you cannot uproot an opera company and put it somewhere else, especially when something like Opera North is already there.
I was on the board of the Royal Opera House when it shut down for refurbishment and it was seriously suggested that we should shut the Royal Ballet for two years. Luckily, I was able to get in touch with one or two funders, such as Lord Sainsbury and Vivien Duffield. When I told them that this was being planned, they rang up and said, “You can say goodbye to all our funding”, because anybody who knows anything about art knows you cannot just stop training. Like an Olympic athlete or the England football team, you have to train all year round. What about all those young dancers coming through? That idea was scotched very soon.
May I draw a medical analogy? While I completely agree that we need funds around the country, there are specialist groups which earn their money. Take the London Sinfonietta, which has lost 41% of its grant. You could say that the work it commissions is niche or the high end of contemporary music, but this is the one company doing it. In my mind, this is not unlike how, in London, we need one or two centres of excellence, because you cannot have that excellence around the country. Think of neurosurgery, for example; many cases will be referred to the hospital in Queen Square, which is so good at it. A child with a terrible paediatric problem will be referred to Great Ormond Street. There is nothing against having one or two centres of excellence that specialise, such as the London Sinfonietta.
Many companies, such as the Britten Sinfonia, cannot understand why they have been cut, given that they have made huge efforts to do what the Arts Council said it wanted. Britten Sinfonia has involved 8,000 children in the east of England and commissioned more than 250 works. It travels to Addenbrooke’s to play music to patients, and it travels to His Majesty’s Prison Whitemoor. What more do you want? That is going out of London, making a base in Cambridge and involving the local community.
We really have to be careful—rather as with our debate tomorrow about the BBC licence fee—that we do not throw the baby out with the bath-water. This is what I fear about one or two aspects of this. I would like to quote my fellow Cross-Bench Peer, my noble friend Lady Bull, because she made a very telling point about the Arts Council redistribution in the debate last week. She said:
“My view is that this rethinking should not have been demanded within the short timeframe of a single funding round. In doing so, the February directive from the then Culture Secretary gnawed at the fingers of the arm’s-length principle. Planning for such a fundamental shift requires a much longer horizon if it is to avoid destabilisation, particularly within a sector still recovering from the pandemic, and if it is to lead to sustainable and positive change that delivers for all communities across all parts of the UK.”—[Official Report, 8/12/22; cols.286-87.]
So, yes, let us level up, but with rather more caution than has been shown so far, and more planning and more dialogue with the people concerned.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, let me declare my interests as a trustee of Tate and chairman of the Parthenon Project, the campaign to return the Parthenon sculptures back to Athens, where they so richly deserve to belong. May I also take this opportunity to be the first noble Lord to wish my noble friend Lord Valerian Freyberg a happy birthday. It is a depressing moment when your friend’s younger brother turns 52 and you realised just how old you are.
I want to begin with a positive note, which is to say that I am an enormous fan of the Arts Council and its leadership. I think Darren Henley has been, until recently, a chief executive without fault. He has handled an incredibly difficult brief extremely well, constantly having to manage a budget that is quite tight and narrow, managing cuts—cuts which I also imposed when I was an Arts Minister—and he has very rarely dropped the ball when dealing with hundreds of different arts organisations, as the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, pointed out. We have now an incredibly distinguished chairman of the Arts Council in Nick Serota, who led the Tate for so many years. We are blessed with many other arts quangos, if I can call them that, like English Heritage, which do an outstanding job.
I think we forget in this country that we have a fantastic system of arts funding. It sits neatly in between the US system of almost entirely private funding and the European system of almost entirely state funding. I think that tripartite system of government support, philanthropy and commercial income works extremely well. Government support acts as a catalyst for many of our arts organisations, but they still have room to be very entrepreneurial and innovative. I should mention in passing that I wrote to the Times a couple of weeks ago, to remind them of the existence of what was the Prince of Wales philanthropy medal. When King Charles was Prince of Wales, for about five or six years he awarded a medal every year to five philanthropists to recognise their contributions specifically to the arts. I hope at some stage the Minister, who is so brilliant at his job—he is really outstanding—will find a way to have a quiet word with the Palace about perhaps making this a proper honour to mark the start of the King’s reign.
I always complain that the Government do not fund the arts generously enough, but it is also important that we acknowledge that arts funding in its wider sense is extremely broad and deep. For example, we have the BBC and tax credits for theatres and museums and for television, video games and film—all of which I regard as arts subjects. We also have our regimental museums funded by the Ministry of Defence and the City of London putting approximately £100 million a year into the arts. We have our local councils and our universities—my noble friend Lord Mendoza mentioned that he is on the board of the Ashmolean, a university museum. We have charities: the National Trust runs more museums than any other organisation in the country. We have an incredibly rich ecosystem and very wide and deep arts funding—which, if you added it all up, would probably come to a couple of billion, if not £3 billion, a year—so we are incredibly lucky. Of course, we also have the private sector, including Sky Arts, the Bridge Theatre, a range of private organisations, a thriving music industry, and a publishing industry which never gets enough attention because it does not get an enormous amount of government money, if any. Again, we forget about the rich ecosystem we have in the private sector.
I will pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said when he opened the debate. I was pleased to listen to his speech, because, while he knows a lot more about Liverpool than me, I have spent a lot of time in the city and in Tate Liverpool. We can go to almost any city or big town in the country and see how arts funding can be transformative—and not just in Liverpool; I was thinking about NewcastleGateshead, which effectively created a tourism economy on the back of places such as the Baltic and Sage Gateshead. Another example is Yorkshire Sculpture Park. If you go to Margate, you will see the incredibly galvanising effect that Turner Contemporary has had on it. To complete the picture: there is the amazing work that Roger De Haan of Saga has done just down the road in Folkestone based purely on philanthropy. There you can see—in miniature, if you like—the incredibly galvanising effect that culture can have.
So, when we have complaints to make, we should all realise just how lucky we are in this country. My first complaint is that we never have enough leadership from the Government to make that point about the arts again and again. It remains, on both sides of the House, an embarrassment for politicians to be seen engaging in and supporting the arts; they are still regarded—ridiculously, in my view—as too elitist, but we should sing from the rooftops the contributions that the arts make all over the country. I pause here to praise my noble friend Lord Mendoza on the incredible work he has done as cultural commissioner, particularly during Covid. He was kind enough to mention my White Paper, but, in the privacy of the Chamber, I reveal that he actually wrote it—please do not tell anyone else.
Before she speaks, I also praise my noble friend Lady Fleet, who has done some fantastic work on music education. I was not able to be present in her debate on music education, but her 10-year review has been widely welcomed and is much needed. Again, that is a good example of how government departments can join up—in that case, the Department for Education and DCMS—to push an important agenda.
Talking about music education, I must segue into the one misstep that the Arts Council has made: its absurd decision on the English National Opera, which was taken at short notice and with no consultation at all. People are involved in that decision, not just the singers and orchestra but all the backroom staff. I must also mention the chairman, Harry Brünjes, who has led the ENO for nine years. Not only is he unpaid, but he has put his own money into ENO. It has been a pretty thankless task for him to turn around an organisation that was at a very low ebb nine years ago and widely derided, to get it to the position it is in now: a popular organisation welcoming many young people through its doors who have never seen opera before, engaging in health—for example, through its ENO Breathe campaign to help people with long Covid—and getting out to the regions. He has done everything and more that any Government could ask. His reward, effectively, was a kick in the teeth from the Arts Council. It is unforgiveable—and I say that as someone who has the utmost respect for Darren Henley and the Arts Council.
That was a terrible decision, and it should have been given with much more notice. If there will ever be another decision like that, it should be made as part of a wider strategy stating what the provision for opera is, how we deliver opera as a product—I know this sounds very managerial—most effectively around the country and what role the ENO can play in that. It may sound sentimental to cite individuals, including Stuart Murphy, the chief executive officer, but that is no way to treat people; it sends a terrible signal, and the Arts Council must look again at that decision.
I want to mention two or three other things, very quickly. It is the 70th anniversary of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest. If any noble Lord gets the chance to serve on it, do—it is wonderful. It is like “The Generation Game”: various arts and treasures come in front of you and you decide whether they are part of our cultural fabric. I was lucky enough to stop Jane Austen’s ring being exported to the American popstar Kelly Clarkson; she was very decent about it. It is a reminder that we care very much about cultural objects being linked to our island’s story, just as our friends the Greeks care very much about the Parthenon sculptures, which should be reunited with the frieze in Athens. As the Minister knows full well, although he cannot say so as he is feeling sort of butch and robust about the whole thing, the frieze is like a movie that has been cut in half, with half of it having been taken, against the will of its owners, to another country. That is another thing that must be remedied.
Finally—as the yellow lights flash—one of the key things about levelling up that we should never forget is digital: we can and should get organisations based in London to audiences outside London. It is difficult to measure what a “London organisation” is: Tate has an SW1 address but a presence in Liverpool and St Ives; the National Theatre has an SE1 address but National Theatre Digital is in all our schools, for free.
In conclusion, I fully endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said about touring. It really is ridiculous, when we have this incredible cultural scene in this country, that we cannot sort out any help for our musicians for touring in Europe.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to discuss the regional distribution of Arts Council England funding. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord McNally, for the chance to raise some concerns.
First, no arts organisation should feel entitled to perpetual state funding as a right. It is totally appropriate to review and shake up which projects and whose artistic output merits public funds. But what is so striking in this funding round is that the criteria do not even pretend to be based on artistic merit at all, but seem to be purely political and, even more crassly, geographic.
The DCMS instruction to redistribute funding away from London has some winners, and I am delighted for both Blackburn and Bradford’s museums and art galleries, and for the Barnsley-based Brass Bands England, which has received funding for the first time, among many others—good luck to them. I am from the north, and it is great to say that we will support the arts in the north; I have no problem with that. But I am slightly anxious about the overall trajectory that reveals a patronising attitude to northern audiences and potentially a philistine attitude to the arts, nowhere better exemplified than in the plight of English National Opera.
Like others—in this, I uncharacteristically fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey—I was shocked by the Arts Council’s treatment of English National Opera. Effectively, its chorus and orchestras are being closed down; they have been sacked. When the Arts Council announced the move, it did so with an ungracious and high-handed ultimatum, which I want to quote:
“ENO’s future is in their hands … We require English National Opera to move to another part of England if they wish to continue to receive support from us.”
But the financial offer it has been given is actually only half its usual budget, so I want to ask whether the Arts Council thinks that those in the north do not deserve full funding of the arts, and should make do with a cut-price, pound shop version of English National Opera.
Such cultural vandalism feels like virtue signalling, devoid of serious strategic thinking and forced through at speed. When Birmingham Royal Ballet relocated from London in the 1980s, it was undertaken with five years’ consultation with audiences, staff and its new venue home, but there has been no consultation in this instance. The move has to be completed in five months, and the Arts Council has not even bothered to consider where ENO might take up residence; it just has to go “up north”.
One venue that might work given its size is Factory International, Manchester’s soon-to-be multimillion-pound arts venue, itself a recipient of Arts Council funding. But no one asked it, and it has made it clear that it will not change its contemporary focus to accommodate the new tenant. Artistic director John McGrath stated that its goals are
“new works, not the traditional opera repertoire.”
What about the Grand, in Leeds, which has the largest stage in England outside of London? But no—it already hosts the wonderful Opera North. Indeed, the whole venture of moving ENO north seems to be a slap in the face for Opera North, the director of which, Richard Mantle, points out:
“It’s not a new idea to have a large professional opera company performing opera in the North; we’ve been doing it for 40 years”.
Somehow, in the debates about opera prompted by this ENO issue, we perhaps get a hint of what the Arts Council’s views are on both opera and its relationship to northern audiences, or to audiences in general. Darren Henley, the chief executive of the Arts Council, claims that opera needs to change to satisfy a new generation of audiences, who he claims want
“opera … presented in new ways: opera in car parks, opera in pubs, opera on your tablet.”
He suggests that such
“New ideas may seem heretic to traditionalists”.
They seem so to me. They are not novel or radical ideas, but they are cheap and second-rate gimmicks, as far as I am concerned, and they show a disparaging view of audiences and the art form. The premise seems to be the cliché that traditional opera, including some of the greatest music ever composed, appeals only to the fusty, rich upper classes and the privileged.
I am reminded of the incident last July, when the Deputy Prime Minister, Dominic Raab, accused Angela Rayner of being a champagne socialist for going to Glyndebourne, as though she were betraying somehow the working classes. I assume he was forgetting that, historically, opera has been a popular art form, enjoyed by millions of people of all social classes, all over the world. Being priced out by expensive tickets or not being able to afford to get the train to London is a problem, but it is very different from the snobbish chippiness that seems to imbue the political and artistic establishments’ implicit prejudice that the plebs will not be interested in, or get, high art. This attitude was on display recently, when the BBC announced that, in order to attract viewers from lower socioeconomic D and E groups, it will make “lighter” dramas, comedies and sports documentaries and use “factual entertainment competition formats”—yuck. It seems that, if you are poor, you will be given poor-quality programmes.
Perhaps that is too cynical, but the Arts Council director of music, Claire Mera-Nelson, has justified attacks on ENO, which, ironically, was set up nearly 100 years ago with the mission to bring opera to the masses—a noble cause. She said that there is insufficient growth in audience demand for traditionally staged large-scale opera. This seems to be a real bean-counter’s approach to the value of the arts. As acclaimed soprano Danielle de Niese asks:
“Do we need to sell as many tickets as the O2 to be recognised? … Should we declare war on everything that isn’t mainstream enough?”
She asks whether all we will be left with is “reality TV”. She then pleads with those who run the arts and politics to “recognise opera’s value” as art per se. But that seems a forlorn hope because valuing artistic excellence is often treated as an elitist endeavour by too many in arts funding and policy circles.
Since the Blair years and the setting up of the DCMS in the 1990s, arts organisations have been told that they must justify their funding using wordy social and economic criteria. “Art for art’s sake” arguments have too often been traduced as arcane, old-fashioned and self-indulgent, and a focus on aesthetics is assumed to alienate popular appeal. Arts organisations have been forced by funding carrots and sticks to show their worth as useful instruments in social and political change. It is true that many in the arts world have embraced this mission over recent years, with orchestras stressing that they are good for health and well-being and theatres opining on their role as community hubs. Often, these are defensive expressions, expressing an existential crisis in arts organisations about their role. In recent years, museums, galleries and classical music have all indulged in angst-ridden introspection about their alleged colonial roots and whiteness, and diversity and inclusion targets mean that outward engagement projects obsess over the age, skin colour and gender of audiences, rather than the artistic quality of their output.
The effect of all this has been the cumbersome politicisation of the arts world. There is too much “artivism” and propagandising and an existential crisis about the role of the arts. It is no surprise that Just Stop Oil activists feel free to desecrate artistic masterpieces to save the planet. Art is considered secondary to politics. All this emanates from the way that artistic excellence has been squeezed out of arts funding. If you look at the bureaucratic Arts Council development programmes, drenched in acronym-laden managerial speak, the intrinsic worth of art is barely visible. Utilitarianism rules the day. The creative local growth fund, the cultural development fund and the Great Place scheme all focus on local economic growth, unlocking productivity and everything. We need that urgently to happen, but it should have been in the Autumn Statement and not be forced on the arts.
As I have gone on about dumbing down, I want to finish by giving the Minister a bit of homework. I suggest that he and the Arts Council learn about the artistic tastes of ordinary people by reading The Intellectual Life of the British Working Class by Jonathan Rose, to understand the rich history of autodidacts thriving on intellectually challenging art and literature, and the new pamphlet by the artist and art critic Alexander Adams, Abolish the Arts Council, which critiques some of these instrumentalising themes. It is selling out as we speak as a stocking filler, but it is a good read.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his excellent introduction to this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for originally tabling it. I wanted particularly to speak in this debate rather than last week’s debate because it is helpful to have a debate which concentrates, at least in theory, just on the arts rather than them being grouped with the creative industries, although last week’s debate was clearly very helpful for this debate.
I strongly support the Arts Council model of funding for two reasons: first, because public funding of the arts is a benefit to us all for the whole of society; and, secondly, because to enable that there should be a properly independent body that can make decisions about to whom and where funding is to be awarded without government interference. I emphasise “where” because that will inevitably affect “whom”. Yet last Thursday, the day of the arts and creative industries debate in this House, Darren Henley made it very clear in oral evidence to the DCMS Select Committee that the Arts Council was not asked but instructed—he used the word “instruction”, as indeed has Nicholas Serota—by Nadine Dorries to shift a considerable amount of money from London to the regions, in my view breaking the arm’s-length principle and resulting in the controversial cuts we are seeing to certain organisations.
I will ask the Minister again the question that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, asked in last week’s debate but to which she did not receive a reply. Does he think it is appropriate that the Secretary of State should instruct an arm’s-length body? The unhealthy result of such interference and uncertainty about where responsibility lies is the open but extremely understandable lobbying, of not just the Arts Council but Parliament, the Government, the press and the public that we are now seeing from organisations which not only feel hard done by but that the decision-making process is being levered by government, and the two things may be connected.
It may be that the Minister, if he does answer this question, will say simply that the Arts Council is an arm’s-length body, but unfortunately that is not how it is currently being perceived, as I hope the Minister will acknowledge. This needs to be properly and constructively addressed by all the concerned parties. I make these points irrespective of the particular decisions that the Arts Council has made, although all of us, perhaps more than usual, will have our personal views on these decisions, and I will come to mine in a moment. Meanwhile, it is worth pointing out that we have a new Secretary of State and the instruction was made by a previous one. However, there should never have been such an instruction if the Arts Council is to remain an arm’s-length body.
We should not forget that these concerns are taking place against the backdrop of long-term cuts to the arts, the necessary help given in response to Covid notwithstanding. In the last 15 years, the Arts Council’s grant in aid has decreased in real terms by 47%. Through Brexit, we have lost the funding from Europe, and central government grants were cut by 37% in real terms between 2009-10 and 2019-20. Some councils do not now spend anything on the arts at all. It has been reported that some councils are on the verge of declaring bankruptcy. Now, of course, we have the added stress of energy costs and inflation.
Unfortunately, the arts are going to be a long way down the list of priorities for many councils, despite local authorities being vital to many of our arts organisations, including museums and regional theatres, which are particularly concerned about their day-to-day running costs. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, pointed out in a previous debate the necessary expenditure of specialist lighting for museums and galleries—one instance of something that cannot be got round. Irrespective of where you stand on austerity, these long-term cuts need to be reversed. In the debate last week, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, made this pertinent observation:
“Fiscal austerity for the arts is not needed to salvage our economy. The DCMS budget for the arts and culture is indiscernible in the national accounts.”—[Official Report, 8/12/22; col. 280.]
I have argued for a long time that we can do much more to support artists across the whole country, but that should be done through an equitable funding model based on increases in funding, not through redistribution of the kind that the former Secretary of State insisted upon, which is surely a coarsening of the envelope of funding available to the Arts Council. This has led inevitably to the “invidious choices”—the Arts Council’s own term—that it has felt it has had to make. If £43.5 million is being made available to the regions—which is very welcome—why are these cuts still being insisted upon?
There is another significant consideration: the growing concern that the Arts Council, in the absence of other funding, is trying to take on too wide a range of projects. In particular, there is concern that through the Let’s Create strategy, it is losing its focus on what should be its core project—the funding of artists and arts production by professional artists—and shifting that focus instead to amateur community projects, particularly in areas of the country where cultural engagement is low, as the Independent Society of Musicians has pointed out. There is absolutely a place for such projects, and they should be funded, but the funding of professional artists and arts organisations should not be sacrificed in their favour. It is notable that the cuts over which there is so much current concern are aimed at organisations involving or directly impacting on professional artists and their co-workers.
Much of the focus on these cuts has been, quite rightly, on classical music and opera, but theatre and the visual arts have also been impacted. Here, there are also potential knock-on effects in terms of the production of new art. The Hampstead and Gate Theatres in London and the Watermill Theatre in Newbury, which have all had their funding cut entirely, all support new writing. Hampstead Theatre has said that it will not now be able to support its new writers programme, so I ask the Minister whether new new writers programmes are intended to be set up elsewhere in the country. If so, how will they be supported in the longer term? The danger is that removing funding from these flagship theatres, as the Writers’ Guild and playwrights themselves point out, will simply lead to more risk-averse programming, less commissioning and less new writing everywhere.
There are cuts to significant London gallery spaces. The wonderful Camden Art Centre—I am looking forward to seeing the Forrest Bess exhibition there—and the Serpentine Galleries are nationally important spaces which put on international work by visual artists. If these spaces are diminished, the whole country will be diminished in terms of the visual arts.
There is an ecology of mutual support between London and the regions, the great danger then being that if you hurt the arts in London, you will also hurt artists and audiences for the arts in the regions. Cuts in London will have a nationwide impact, and this will be true in the business sense as well. As the Heart of London Business Alliance said in a letter to the Financial Times last month:
“Central London’s dynamic arts sector and rich culture and experiences make the West End such a unique and special place, bringing in millions of tourists every year. Many of these visitors go on to visit other parts of the UK contributing £641mn to local economies in 2019. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that short-changing London is going to make us all culturally and financially poorer while making the UK a less attractive destination for visitors.”
London is not just the place that has historically received the most money for the arts. It is also the country’s centre of business and the major centre of higher education for the arts; and the galleries, theatres and concert halls there belong to the country as much as to London. For things to change radically from the present asymmetry, which I do not dispute, we need the cuts to grants for local authorities to be dramatically reversed. But local government across the country should also have strong revenue-raising powers, as regional government has in Germany, where there is a much greater spread of arts geographically.
There are brilliant artists, arts organisations and events across the whole of this country, but even in the digital age, the natural tendency remains for artists to gravitate to the big, powerful cities; artists and arts-producing organisations should be funded wherever they are. The former Secretary of State’s artificial arts engineering is not in the long run going to change this tendency, even as it frustrates the arts. The way forward is rather to empower our English regions and regional cities politically and financially to allow artists to thrive within them, and to be able to do so in the longer term.
Baroness Fleet (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure and also a challenge, I must say, to speak today. I declare my arts and education interests as listed in the register, including as a national council member of Arts Council England. It is an honour to follow the noble Earl, who speaks so passionately about the arts and with such knowledge.
I congratulate my noble friends Lord Mendoza and Lord Vaizey for setting out so clearly the case for levelling up. I shall not fully defend that case, because we all see that there are flaws: I know that several noble Lords have already expressed real regret at the way the Arts Council has diverted significant funds from London to regional areas. Instinctively, I have some sympathy. As editor of the Evening Standard, I championed the arts and the benefits that investment brought not just to London but to the whole country. When I was a senior adviser in City Hall to the then Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, London was undoubtedly the cultural capital of the world. As chair of Arts Council London for eight years from 2010, I championed excellence and fought hard to maintain London’s share, at over 40%, of the total funding. It will now be around 33%.
I rejoined the Arts Council board earlier this year, two years after the Let’s Create vision was envisioned. Of one thing I am sure: we must continue to fight to retain London’s supremacy. I know that it is hard in these difficult financial times, but there are ways to do it. Undoubtedly, its theatres, music, dance and visual arts are world-leading; no one in this Chamber could be more pro-London than me. However—the “however” had to come—it is surely important that access to arts and culture be more fairly spread, not just for reasons of social justice, but because culture and heritage, as many noble Lords have already set out, bring pride to local communities and economic growth too. Museums and arts organisations should be nurtured and supported in every part of the country.
Additional funding will consolidate world-class organisations outside of London, such as the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, Ex Cathedra choir in Birmingham and Opera North in Leeds, but also newly funded organisations such as the Buxton Opera House and Bradford Museums and Galleries—yet another mention in this debate. I have seen how access to high-quality music, for example, can change the lives of young people. Should not children from all areas of the country benefit from this kind of opportunity? Of course they should: we all agree about that. As long as the newly funded organisations are delivering excellent work and reaching new audiences, I think and really hope that the levelling-up agenda could be acknowledged a success in a few years’ time.
I am pleased that within the new Arts Council portfolio there are excellent music education newcomers, such as Orchestras for All, Awards for Young Musicians and the National Children’s Orchestra, all based outside London and each contributing to the new national plan for music education. Some critics of the Government and the Arts Council have argued that levelling up will lead to dumbing down. It will not, if the investment is made wisely in organisations with a strong track record of producing excellent work.
As a member of the National Council, I can assure noble Lords that we are not all of one mind. There is rigorous debate, many decisions are disputed and many decisions are not easy. I hope the Arts Council will, in particular, think harder about additional funding and opportunities for young playwrights, musicians and artists, as several noble Lords have said, because London is taking the brunt of the cuts and those young people will undoubtedly be affected. The pipeline of talent is critical for the future of our creative economy.
No one is arguing that decisions to withdraw funding from some of the very best organisations are taken lightly. It will be difficult and painful for them. However, I have confidence in the creativity and passion of organisations such as the Donmar and the Britten Sinfonia, and their capacity to survive and thrive. Companies do find new ways of working. They build new business plans. An example is the Orange Tree Theatre in Richmond, which lost funding in 2014 and is now flourishing. Already, the Hampstead Theatre, soon to leave the Arts Council portfolio, is working up a new business plan which will continue to have new writing at its heart.
The loss of funding can be very emotional, as we have seen in the debate about the ENO. Many words of regret and even anger have been heard in this Chamber and the other place about the new proposals, yet I am cautiously optimistic. The ENO will survive—of that I am certain. A model along the very successful lines of the Royal Shakespeare Company, with a regional and a London base, is now being considered. I have no doubt that this is a huge challenge, but I am sure that with substantial support, including very significant transitional funding and perhaps funds from other pots of money from the Arts Council, as well as the prospect of core funding in three years’ time, there can be a future for the ENO. It will exist in a different way, but there will be an ENO. This must of course include career opportunities for young singers and instrumental musicians.
The Arts Council executive has taken a bashing for many of its decisions. We in this House do want opera in opera houses, but that does not mean it cannot be in some car parks too. We must ensure that due regard is given to tradition, as well as innovation, and that includes playing the national anthem—noble Lords will know what I am referring to. We must ensure that the critics of levelling up are not proved right. In the court of public opinion, the Arts Council will be judged not on its commendable diversity or environmental targets, but on whether excellent art is being enjoyed by ever-increasing numbers of people, right across the country.
We must ensure that London remains the cultural capital of the world, and I will do my utmost as a member of Arts Council England to help make sure that happens. I assure noble Lords that I will fight in the trenches of the Arts Council to see what additional funding is available; other pots of money can be found to support these excellent organisations. When I hear the LSO’s Sir Simon Rattle conduct Rachmaninoff’s Third Symphony, as I did the other evening, or the LPO’s Ed Gardner conduct Mahler’s Ninth, my heart, as one critic said, beats a little faster. Let every heart across the country beat a little faster.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, as the last speaker before the Front-Bench speakers, I will focus my remarks, as others have today, on opera, and in particular the ENO following the Arts Council’s recent decision to withdraw all national programme funding from this organisation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I am concerned that Arts Council England, by its own admission, has made no strategic nationwide assessment of the need or audience for opera, yet, without consulting any opera companies, it has reduced funding across all opera by £32 million. The ENO is asked to relocate with a massive funding cut; the English touring budget of Welsh National Opera is cut by a third, and as a consequence it will no longer tour to Liverpool; and Glyndebourne’s touring budget is cut by half.
With regard to the ENO’s relocation, it is neither realistic nor compassionate for a large opera company to start moving to an as yet undetermined location with 20 weeks’ notice after the withdrawal of most of its funding. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, rightly mentioned, when the Birmingham Royal Ballet moved from Sadler’s Wells to Birmingham, it had 10 years from the first conversation to the full move, including five years of audience-building and local investment to grow the audience and brand. You cannot achieve that in a few months. To withdraw so much funding from the ENO at the same time as moving it would make it impossible for regional audiences to enjoy the kind of work that London audiences currently enjoy—which goes against the principle of promoting greater access and fairness across the nation.
It is worth stating that, before ACE’s latest decision, ENO was already far advanced in developing a plan for much greater regional representation, which would be interconnected with its London base. This was based on ENO’s experience that high-quality opera, of all kinds and in all places, is best achieved by maintaining the resources of a permanent company of top-level artists and technical staff. At Arts Council England’s new funding level, this plan is now totally unachievable, as the new funding level makes it impossible for ENO to maintain a high-quality permanent opera company as a base.
The Arts Council seems to see a future for ENO which lies mainly in small-scale projects with an undefined residue of grand opera, but none of this has been made explicit or, it would seem, thought through in any detail. For example, ACE states that it wants ENO to keep the London Coliseum and perform there for some of the year, letting it out commercially for the rest of the time. Yet it does not seem to envisage the ENO as a company that is, in fact, large enough to perform at the Coliseum at all.
The new funding level suggests that the Arts Council model is more one of engaging freelancers as and when required, rather than building quality and talent in a maintained opera company; again, though, none of this is explicit. If the ENO is to be a genuine national opera company, developing talent and creating opera to the highest standards, it is hard to see how it can do that without a permanent company within which to develop and maintain those skills—and that is the case whether or not the Arts Council feels that large-scale grand opera is worthy of support. This is a major structural issue, with ramifications for the ecology of opera nationwide. It requires far more careful consideration and needs to be addressed as part of a coherent national opera strategy.
One of the problems with the Arts Council’s process is the complete lack of transparency in decision-making. The ENO met or exceeded all the ACE targets. ACE considers it to be run in an excellent way, yet it is impossible to find out what criteria ACE used that resulted in it, and other well-run organisations, being removed from the national portfolio. The suspicion is that Arts Council England is no longer quite the arm’s-length body it is supposed to be. I share the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. Dr Darren Henley, the CEO of ACE, said in evidence to the Commons DCMS Select Committee on 8 December:
“We always receive instructions from the Secretary of State about our grant-in-aid investment”
and that it
“needed to move money out of London”.
However, in a Written Answer published two weeks ago by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, the Government stated:
“All decisions on which organisations to fund … and by how much, have been taken by Arts Council England. In line with the long-standing principle that the Arts Council makes such decisions at arm’s length from Government, there are no plans to ask it to reconsider these decisions.”
This is, of course, a contradiction. More clarity from both sides is therefore required.
In conclusion, in the interests of all opera companies, audiences and stakeholders, Arts Council England must remedy the confusion it has caused by urgently conducting a nationwide review of the provision of opera, taking into account audiences and need. It should, if necessary, be prepared to amend its decisions accordingly and it should be fully transparent about the criteria it uses in its decision-making process.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord McNally on obtaining this debate—I am just sorry that he is not here to participate—and my noble friend Lord Storey on his brilliant introduction to it. Debates on culture and levelling up are obviously like buses: you wait for ages and then two come along in quick succession. Perhaps I could tempt the Minister to treat this like the Report stage of a Bill, when he attempts to give a better answer to questions than he gave during the previous debate.
As my noble friend Lord Storey said, today’s debate is an opportunity to celebrate and highlight the role of culture and the arts in levelling up in the regions. We have heard some great examples of the positive role of cultural levelling up in the regions. He talked about the role of the arts in regeneration in Liverpool and about the Prescot theatre of the north. He talked about culture and the arts as a powerful engine of economic growth, with benefits beyond the economy in health and education. He also talked about the experience of being the European Capital of Culture.
It was a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza. He illustrated some great examples in Bradford, Blackburn, Rotherham, and Tyne and Wear, and the success of the City of Culture programme in Hull and Coventry. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, who no doubt we all should listen to on Friday evenings, talked about Gateshead, Margate and Folkestone. The noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, talked about Buxton Opera House.
So there were some wonderful examples there, but it is not all roses, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made clear, even in the regions—I will come to London shortly—and not just because we are in a post-Covid situation. There are problems with touring post Brexit, and inflation was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. A number of factors are contributing, but Arts Council decisions have impacted on the regions as well. Liverpool has lost its main access to opera because the Welsh National Opera has had its funding for work across the border cut. It also performs in Bristol, Birmingham, Southampton and Oxford, but it has suffered a 35% cut. How is that levelling up? Glyndebourne, which has had a fantastic touring programme in our towns and cities for 50 years, has had a 50% cut in its funding too.
Manchester should have its own opera company, of course. I was very interested in the phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about a “slap in the face for Opera North”. Abolishing the grant to the Britten Sinfonia removes support for the only serious orchestra serving eastern England, and Plymouth Music Zone has lost its entire funding. I do not believe that is a good catalogue that will encourage levelling up.
In particular, as a number of noble Lords have made clear, levelling up should not be at the expense of a vibrant London creative community and our brilliant London theatres and opera houses. My noble friend started by making that absolutely clear. The phrase used, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was “robbing Peter to pay Paul”. That is the wrong way to go. There is nothing to be gained by cutting the funding for creativity in London.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also described the role of our London institutions as centres of excellence. Many of the big London-based arts organisations take their productions and exhibitions on tour throughout the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and my noble friend Lord Storey acknowledged. The noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, seemed extraordinarily conflicted in what she had to say, but I think she would agree with Caroline Norbury, CEO of Creative UK, that
“levelling up cannot mean levelling down, and a rapid reduction in support for world-class cultural organisations in London is short-sighted.”
That diminishes us all, including our international reputation for creativity.
We come on to what has actually happened with the funding. Two London theatres mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the Hampstead Theatre and the Donmar—both such extraordinary centres of new writing for decades—have lost their entire grant. The Gate, just recently moved to Camden, has had its entire grant removed too. I noted the optimism of the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, but as a result of these developments, Roxana Silbert has quit as the Hampstead Theatre’s artistic director.
If anything, the ENO has been treated worse, with the total loss of its £12.6 million core annual funding. The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Vaizey—by the way, I absolutely endorse his praise for Harry Brunjes, who has done an incredible job for the ENO—and Lord Freyberg, my noble friend Lord Storey and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, focused a great deal on the entire situation as far as the ENO is concerned.
Last week, the Minister acknowledged that London plays a special role and gave a number of inspiring examples. As he said:
“Those institutions perform a levelling-up function in providing a national stage on which people can perform.”—[Official Report, 8/12/22; col. 306.]
He then paid fulsome tribute to the ENO during the debate. That is very little consolation, given the gun that has now been put to the ENO’s head by the Arts Council. It is as if opera itself was being singled out for ill treatment, and this is where I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. Surely the massive efforts the ENO has made over the years to bring opera and performance to diverse audiences—11% of ENO’s audience is ethnically diverse—should have been recognised. It has the most diverse full-time chorus in the country and provides free tickets for under-21s. I could go on about its extraordinary education programme, which was praised by Darren Henley himself. At the same time, ENO’s productions are world beating, as anyone who has seen its version of Philip Glass’s “Akhnaten” will attest to.
As it happens, the Major Government bought the Coliseum for ENO. It now makes no sense at all to undermine that investment. As the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, indicated, is this an opera thing? Berlin, Paris and Vienna have three opera houses. Is it beyond our wit to fund two? Three of the five largest reductions in funding were imposed on opera companies. Cutting public support makes opera more elitist, not less.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, also paid tribute—he is very good at paying tribute to people, by the way—to Darren Henley, and I—
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
I use this opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and ask him specifically why he has not replied to my text message inviting him to appear as my guest this Friday on my Times Radio show.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
That is because I have not received it, but I look forward to reading my text.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, paid tribute to Darren Henley, as do I, but he did not say that he now pays tribute; he paid tribute to Darren Henley in the past. This has been a bungled funding round with what I fear will be very adverse consequences for the UK’s creative community. I liked the phrase from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox: forced through at speed.
Last week, the Minister talked about cherishing the arm’s-length relationship, but there is very little evidence of that. Arts Council England is clearly having to work to the Government’s strategy and timing, as Darren Henley said in his evidence to the Communications and Digital Committee, and as was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg:
“We were asked by the Government to move some money out of London”—
it sounds almost illicit, does it not?—
“£16 million in year 1 and £24 million by the end of year 3.”
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
I am so sorry to interrupt the noble Lord as he is in full swing, but I think the phrase was that they were “instructed”. That is very important when we are talking about the arm’s-length principle.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
We may have to correct the record because I looked at the transcript and it did not say “instructed”. I am willing to look again at that, and I am sure the Minister will have a quick google and see whether or not that is the case.
Sir Peter Bazalgette, the former chair, makes the same point in his November letter to the FT:
“Ace had been gradually moving resources outside London for some time. In my time as chair we shifted both grant-in-aid and lottery funding by 10 per cent, without suddenly cutting off major institutions.”
He goes on to make exactly the same point about the fact that this really was an instruction from Nadine Dorries to make a larger and sudden distribution. What kind of independence is that? Many noble Lords have made that point.
I am afraid the only conclusion is that the Minister has to accept that he and his colleagues are presiding over the settlement and should take full responsibility for this very crude and destructive form of levelling up, rather than hiding behind the Arts Council.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and congratulate him on securing the debate. I wish him a speedy recovery from the ghastly Covid. I express our eternal gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for opening the discussion in his place so effectively, focusing as he did on Liverpool and its regeneration in the late 1970s, based on a culture-led platform, and for focusing so effectively on the plight of the ENO and the impact of the cuts on London’s cultural landscape.
This has been a brilliantly illustrated debate. Noble Lords from all sides have made fascinating contributions. I particularly enjoyed the return of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, to this subject; he always enlightens, illuminates and amuses our House. He always congratulates people. That is almost a given; it comes as part of the story and is always part of the rhetoric. I enjoyed his contribution for many reasons, largely because I agreed with most of what he said. It was also a delight to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, with her experience and her understanding of the process, and to the input of the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza. The noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Berkeley, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, all made arguments that were hard to disagree with.
Last week we had an extremely similar debate on the case for a strategy to support the arts and our creative industries, which probably gave the Minister a useful preview of many of the similar points and arguments made today. Let us just hope that the Government have lines that are more convincing than those he deployed on that occasion.
The recent decisions by Arts Council England have attracted significant interest. They have dominated our debate today, and rightly so because that is the topic. A lot of it has focused on the ENO, which has been mentioned many times by all speakers. In a Commons adjournment debate secured by the Conservative MP Bob Neill, several Conservative MPs voiced their displeasure at not only the ENO decision but the underlying processes used by the Arts Council. That is what we need to focus on.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, described the ENO decision as absurd, and I find it hard to disagree with that. He said he thought it was unforgivable, which is absolutely true. Sir Robert Buckland, the former Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, labelled this a sorry saga, criticising, as a number of noble Lords have today, the suddenness of the decision, the abruptness of the withdrawal of funding and the failure even to consider a phased approach. That gets to the core of the problem. We all recognise that, at least in theory, the Arts Council operates at arm’s length from Whitehall. However, Ministers can exert influence in a number of ways, and there have been plenty of suggestions that that is exactly what has happened.
I would like to probe the Minister a bit more on this point, because I have detected some inconsistency in the Government’s response to recent events. On 5 December, in the Commons debate cited earlier, the Minister, Stuart Andrew, said that the Arts Council’s decisions
“were made entirely independently of Government, so I cannot comment on the individual outcomes.”
He then took an intervention on whether the DCMS would overturn the ENO decision. Mr Andrews said, in his next sentence, that Ministers would intervene only if the organisation looked to be
“breaching the terms set by the Government”,
but that, in that case,
“it was following the instructions that were set”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/22; col. 181.]
So which is it? Is Arts Council England an arm’s-length body that makes its own funding decisions or is it an additional tool for implementing the Government’s levelling-up policy agenda?
We have been told, not least by the Minister in last week’s arts debate, that funding decisions were taken against
“well-established criteria and expectations”.—[Official Report, 8/12/22; col. 306]
Why then are so many people surprised by the outcomes of the process, or even the conducting of the process itself?
Similar concerns have been voiced in the recent past, including suggestions that the DCMS asked Channel 4 to change how it framed certain parts of its annual report in order to make it more attractive to potential buyers in the likelihood of privatisation.
Our arts institutions and fantastic creative industries are far too precious to become the victims of what my Commons colleague, Barbara Keeley, diplomatically referred to as “too much political direction”. The Government may argue that the ends justify the means, with funding in this latest round reaching new parts of the country. We all celebrate that, because we all believe in levelling up, and we welcome support for organisations in towns and cities that have not received financial support—or enough of it—to date, but we should bear in mind that criticism of the Arts Council’s approach is coming not only from London and the south-east.
I asked last week why the Government seem to view levelling up in such black and white terms, or as a zero-sum game. Many of the institutions and productions funded in London and the south-east deliver benefits elsewhere in the country—as noble Lords have given ample voice to this afternoon—with outreach programmes providing access to schools, and many shows being sent around the UK on tour and so on. Glyndebourne touring, which comes from my part of the world, is a prime example: it is an organisation that will have its touring fund cut by 50%, which means that it cannot do the job that it is partly designed to do. What is the value in that? How does that aid and assist levelling up on a national scale?
There is a finite pot of money, but should we not be looking at how to improve the impact that these grants have, rather than arbitrarily shifting funding and organisations elsewhere? Publishing an overarching strategy for the arts would undoubtedly help, as would proper consultation with interested parties prior to decisions being made—which is what has angered so many people in the course of this afternoon’s debate. That is how we should be proceeding, rather than directing bodies such as the Arts Council to act in a particular way, irrespective of opinion on the ground.
I have to accept that funding decisions are always problematic, even more so when they are driven by conflicting pressures at a time when a Government have decided to restrict public spending. Directed as Arts Council England has clearly been by the Government to level up regions long neglected in funding, it has inevitably been caught in the cross-hairs of conflicting policies.
Ultimately, I ask these questions: should we be trying to level up long-standing inequalities in one big leap? Should we be trying to level up the regions at the expense of centres of excellence that do so much to enable our cultural industries to grow and flourish to everyone’s benefit? I hope the Minister today can turn his mind to these conundrums more convincingly than at his last attempt.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, people are sometimes sniffy about revivals of old productions or reruns of old programming. I am conscious that we had a three-hour debate on a similar theme last week but, with today’s stellar cast, our debate this afternoon has been a triumphant encore. In paying generous tribute to all and sundry, my noble friend Lord Vaizey is so much more than a tribute act. If I repeat some of my lines today, it is in that spirit and with respect to the original text.
In all seriousness, I am very glad to have this opportunity for further debate, including with a number of noble Lords who were not able to speak in last week’s debate. Again, they have made thoughtful contributions to this important topic. There have been a number of debates in both Houses on it, which is to be welcomed and demonstrates the breadth of support across both Houses of Parliament for arts and culture in our national life.
His Majesty’s Government are firmly committed to supporting arts and culture across the whole country. Our investment in culture remains a key part of our work to level up access and opportunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said in his opening speech. Like others, I wish a speedy recovery to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on whose behalf he opened today’s debate—and indeed a happy birthday to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.
As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, access to high-quality arts and culture needs to be more fairly spread; the economic growth and life-changing benefits that come from arts and creativity should be felt by everyone, and the sense of pride that culture and heritage can bring to communities should be felt in every part of our country. I was struck by how fitting the name “Hope Street” is: the noble Lord mentioned the Everyman Theatre, and it is also home to the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, the Merseyside Academy of Drama and many other institutions. Arts and culture bring hope and pride to communities across the country.
As the noble Lord said, for too long, not everywhere has been getting its fair share of funding and opportunity. In the last national portfolio round of funding from the Arts Council, London was funded to the tune of about £21 per capita; the rest of the country, to the tune of £6 per capita. That is a striking discrepancy, even allowing for the important role played by our national capital. It is why we asked Arts Council England to ensure that it was investing more in other parts of the country and why, working with it, we identified more than 100 Levelling Up for Culture Places. We did so transparently; the methodology and metrics used have been published on Arts Council England’s website, which identifies which places have benefited. That was in keeping with Arts Council England’s long-standing work to ensure that arts, culture and creativity are better supported across the whole of England.
As a result of that work, a record number of organisations applied for funding in the next investment programme and a record number were included—990. That is an increase from 814 in the last portfolio and 663 in the one before. As I mentioned in my closing speech last week, this is as a result of a larger pie of funding. My right honourable friends Oliver Dowden and Nadine Dorries secured, at the last spending review, an increase of more than £43 million to the Arts Council’s grant in aid budget for the spending review period. So more organisations are being funded in more parts of the country, with a larger pot of funding. Every part of England beyond London is seeing an increase in its funding and every part, including London, is seeing an increase in the number of organisations funded. Many places will now be home to funded organisations which have never been home to them before—places such as Bolsover, Mansfield and Blackburn.
In Liverpool, the home city of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, Arts Council funding has increased very significantly, by nearly 40%, with over £11 million each year to support 29 organisations across the city region. That picture is replicated in other combined authorities: Tees Valley is set to see a 49% increase in funding and West Yorkshire a 47% increase. That change is transformative and unprecedented.
The new portfolio will improve access to arts and culture across the whole country and for people from all backgrounds. Some 120 organisations in the new portfolio are led by people from lower socioeconomic groups; 148 are led by people from ethnic minority backgrounds—an increase from just 53 organisations in the last portfolio; and 32 organisations are led by people with disabilities. In the debate last week, I mentioned DASH in Shropshire, which I saw four weeks ago. The Levelling Up for Culture Places will see investment almost double, receiving £130 million over the next three years—a 95% increase in investment in these areas.
A number of noble Lords took the opportunity again today to highlight English National Opera in particular. We are joined again by its excellent chairman and chief executive, Harry Brünjes and Stuart Murphy. It is testament to the quality of its work and the support that it has that the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has devoted part of its birthday to singing its praises—rightly. I am happy to repeat the praise that I gave from this Dispatch Box last week. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I enjoyed its productions of Philip Glass—I saw “Akhnaten” and “Satyagraha”, as well as “My Fair Lady”. I also saw the important work it did through the ENO Breathe programme, which was recognised in the Lancet as well as the mainstream press.
I will highlight, as I did last week, the fact that this is one decision out of 1,700 that the Arts Council considered. As I said, there are a record number of organisations in the next portfolio—990—but unfortunately there were over 700 who applied and were unsuccessful on this occasion. I would love to be the Arts Minister who could ensure that all applicants receive the support they request, but no Minister ever could be. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, there is a finite pot, albeit a larger pot than in the previous round, and the difficult job that the Arts Council has is to ensure that that finite pot of taxpayers’ money is invested fairly.
Arts Council England has offered the English National Opera a package of support, and at DCMS we have been keen to ensure that the two organisations are speaking directly about it. We are very keen that they both continue to work together on the possibilities for the future of the organisation. I am afraid that I cannot say much about that, out of fairness to both, but I am glad that they are speaking and encourage them to keep doing so.
A number of noble Lords raised questions on opera more generally. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested that this art form had perhaps been targeted. I would like to reassure noble Lords that for the next investment programme, Arts Council England’s investment in opera, orchestras and other classical organisations will represent around 80% of all investment in music; opera, specifically, will remain at around 40% of the Arts Council’s overall investment in music. Organisations such as the English Touring Opera and the Birmingham Opera Company will receive increased funding, and there are many new opera companies joining, including Opera Up Close and Pegasus Opera Company based in Brixton, which I visited last week. Indeed, there are more opera companies in the new portfolio than there were in the last one. The single largest recipient of funding in the portfolio remains the Royal Opera House, which is also home to the Royal Ballet, which will continue to be funded and will receive around £22 million, the same as all of the east Midlands put together.
A number of noble Lords talked about touring, and I know some may be concerned that considering where an organisation is headquartered is rather a blunt instrument when it comes to levelling up. Touring is important, and the Government and the Arts Council have been encouraging our biggest cultural organisations to keep striving to reach out beyond their home areas. We do not, in any respect, disparage or undervalue that vital work, but we cannot level up culture by touring alone. There is a difference in having an organisation based in your community from just being able to visit it as it passes through your town or city. When we were debating this last week, the chief executive of the Arts Council, Dr Darren Henley, was giving evidence to the Select Committee in another place. There he made the important observation that, as well as touring,
“centres of production excellence and creativity around the country are important too”.
That comment echoes the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, in his speech today.
For those organisations in areas which will now be in receipt of support in the new portfolio, I hope it will mean supporting creative individuals working in a community; making material which is uniquely relevant or reflective of that community; forming local clusters of creative jobs and firms; extending opportunity for people who wish to work in these thriving sectors; and boosting the pride of communities. This is nothing new. Perhaps I may quote the late Lord Keynes, who was the first chairman of the Arts Council and told a BBC magazine in 1945:
“Nothing can be more damaging than the excessive prestige of metropolitan standards and fashions. Let every part of Merry England be merry in its own way.”
I am not a natural Keynesian, but on that I certainly agree. As a number of noble Lords said, it is absolutely right that art and culture that is produced and consumed in these merry parts of England is, and should be, just as good as that which is enjoyed in the metropolis.
I will add the book recommended by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, to my Christmas reading list; I completely agree with her about the brilliant work of autodidacts in culture. Coming from the north-east, I think in particular of the Ashington Group and the Pitmen painters—self-taught, working-class painters whose art I very much admire and have seen in the Woodhorn Museum in Northumberland. Their story was powerfully told in a play, “The Pitmen Painters”, which began at the Live Theatre in Newcastle and transferred to the National Theatre in London before going on tour around the United Kingdom and thence to Broadway, Vancouver and Buenos Aires, where an interesting array of Geordie accents was on display to global audiences. They told powerfully that working-class story about the north-east of England, which is what we want to see.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, about the importance of new writing. New Writing North, which is based in the north-east, will receive an additional £90,000 in the new portfolio. I visited Pentabus, a company supporting writers talking about rural England and sharing the stories of people from rural backgrounds. There is also increased investment in the new portfolio for the Bush Theatre, as well as continued support for the Talawa Theatre Company and the Kiln Theatre, all of which are based in London, to support new writing in theatre. Theatre remains the art form most generously supported through the Arts Council’s new portfolio.
A number of noble Lords talked about the impact on London. Once again, let me be clear that we remain committed to supporting the nation’s capital. We recognise and appreciate that London is a world-leading cultural centre, with organisations that do not just benefit the whole country but greatly enhance the UK’s international reputation as a home of world-class arts and culture. Here, again, the late Lord Keynes points the way. He said that
“it is also our business to make London a great artistic metropolis, a place to visit and to wonder at.”
Once again, I agree wholeheartedly. This principle is clearly reflected in the Arts Council’s next investment programme. Around a third of its investment will be spent in London, equivalent to approximately £143 million per year for the capital; London will receive around a third of the funding despite having just 16% of the population of England.
Further, this funding will be spread across London in a fairer way. We are not just levelling up between London and the rest of the country; we are levelling up within London too. In the previous funding round, the top four organisations in London represented 43% of London’s budget. The funding is more equitably shared across London in the new portfolio, with 61 London-based organisations receiving funding for the first time, while the Arts Council’s priority places in London—the boroughs of Croydon, Brent, Enfield, Barking and Dagenham, and Newham—will receive £18.8 million over the next three years. In Croydon alone, investment will double to just under £5 million, and the borough will see three new organisations join the portfolio. The new Arts Council portfolio will give people right across the country more opportunities to access culture on their doorsteps.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, repeated the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, in our debate last week about the instruction from the previous Secretary of State to Arts Council England. I think that I responded to it, but I am happy to do so again. I gladly set out the Government’s commitment to the arm’s-length principle in my speech last week. It is not contradictory in any respect for the Government to request that the Arts Council disburse its taxpayer funding according to a set of broad parameters while ensuring that central government and Ministers are in no way involved in the individual decisions that the Arts Council makes. The letter from my right honourable friend Nadine Dorries is published for all to see on the Arts Council’s website, so this has not been a hidden process; it has been done explicitly. She made a Written Statement to Parliament at the time and was proud to do so.
Funding for arts and culture comes from taxpayers right across the country, so it is right that it should benefit people in every part of the country. As I said last week, that taxpayer subsidy through the Arts Council is only one part of the way in which cultural life in the country is supported. My noble friend Lord Mendoza set out the manifold ways we work to support the arts and culture across the country, and I pay tribute to him for his years of hard work delivering those important programmes which make such a difference.
My noble friend Lord Vaizey of Didcot is right to point to the mixed model we have in this country of taxpayer subsidy alongside the importance of private and commercial philanthropy. When my noble friend was a Minister, he brought in programmes such as the cultural gift scheme, which has been such an important addition to encourage gifting and philanthropy in the arts. I completely agree with him on the importance of recognising people who are generous in that way through the honours system, and I take the point he made about our new sovereign’s particular interest. I am glad that he mentioned the 70th anniversary of the Waverley criteria, which we marked this week. Saving works of art and cultural objects for the nation has enriched collections in museums and galleries right across the country and not just in our capital.
As noble Lords will know, last month, in the Autumn Statement, my right honourable friend the Chancellor set out his plans to restore stability to the economy, to protect high-quality public services and to build long-term prosperity for the United Kingdom. He also announced a £13.6 billion package of support for business rates payers in England, which will support businesses across the arts and cultural sector, just as it will across the wider economy. He confirmed plans for the second round of the levelling-up fund, with at least £1.7 billion to be allocated to infrastructure projects around the UK before the end of the year. The levelling-up fund has three themes: local transport projects; town centre and high street regeneration—both of which have an important connection to the arts and culture—and supporting cultural and heritage assets. That is another boost for the arts and culture and, again, a recognition of their role in the economy and our wider lives. Officials in DCMS and our arm’s-length bodies have been supporting the assessment and prioritisation process of the levelling-up fund, and I am very pleased that the second round will include the potential for up to two £50 million flagship culture and heritage projects.
I am grateful for the further opportunity to set out how the Government’s extensive programme of support through the Arts Council’s NPO programme is benefitting areas right across England. I hope noble Lords will agree that, by increasing investment beyond the capital, the Arts Council will help to generate cultural and creative opportunities for more people and in places that have been overlooked for too long, and in doing so redress the historic imbalance in funding. I strongly believe that such investment will ensure that our world-class arts and culture will continue to thrive right across every part of England.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Peers for their contributions; we seemed to speak almost with one voice. I got an early Christmas present from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in that it was the first time I agreed with everything she said, so I thank her for that.
I am grateful for the Minister’s thorough reply. However, I suspect that, because of the position in which he finds himself, he is not able to deal directly with many of the questions that were asked of him—particularly on touring. I was quite interested in his comment on English National Opera; he said that they were speaking but that he could not say more. I understand that, but I hope that that speaking becomes a serious conversation, in which the points that have been made today are answered. I thank all noble Lords.