House of Commons
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
We have a comprehensive package of measures under way to improve support for victims of rape, and I can tell the House that in the last year, adult rape convictions rose by 65% over the previous year.
Mark Fletcher
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. A constituent recently raised with me concerns about registered sex offenders being able to change their names while in prison, which causes immense concern to the families and loved ones of victims. What steps are being taken to ensure that, in such cases, offenders are not able to walk away from their crimes?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can tell and reassure him that governors are under no obligation to accept requests for a change of name. Public safety is the most important consideration. When a change of name is recognised, probation records are updated, police are notified, and victims and others affected would also be notified.
Robin Millar
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s answer. In particular, I welcome the opening of a new rape crisis line offering essential support to victims. Does he agree that such a service should be made available across England and Wales, and will he ensure that it is promoted across England and Wales?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I thank him for raising that. It is critical for victims of rape across the United Kingdom. The new 24/7 support line is available to victims aged 16 or over in England and Wales. There is also a steering group, working with central Government and the Welsh Government, that has oversight of the service. I think it is a great example of what the UK Government are delivering for the people of Wales.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The independent inquiry in child sexual abuse highlighted how victims are repeatedly failed by inconsistent application of the victims code, demonstrating the desperate need for legislation. Will the Government listen to the inquiry and commission an inspection of compliance with the victims code in relation to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse? When will the victims Bill be introduced?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point. She will know that the victims Bill has gone through pre-legislative scrutiny—I am poised to respond to the Chair of the Select Committee—and it will address all the issues that she raises. I hope that it will have the full-hearted, full-throated support of those on the Opposition Benches.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
One of the better ways of supporting rape victims is to ensure that when the rapist comes up for parole, the families of victims and the victim themselves are informed that parole is being considered. In the case of Andrew Barlow—the so-called “Coronation Street rapist”, who was convicted of many rapes—that has not happened. The Parole Board is now recommending that he be released. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that in such cases, the parole system works properly and effectively?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that case. That notification should happen. I will take this up and write to him afterwards. That support for victims right through the process, including for the parole of the perpetrator of such a serious offence, is important. I also gently say that I would welcome the support of the Opposition when we introduce our parole reforms so that we have stronger ministerial oversight of the release of the most dangerous offenders. The Opposition cannot keep talking tough while not supporting the action that we are putting through this House.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The significant rise in the number of rape convictions is extremely encouraging. As the Secretary of State will know, at the heart of that success, and indeed of support for rape victims, lies a new operating model: Operation Soteria. Can he update us on how many police forces and Crown Prosecution Service areas have now adopted that new operation, and when does he expect the 100% roll-out so that we can see that kind of rise across the whole country?
Dominic Raab
I have to start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend for the exceptional job that he did working on this issue in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. The increase in rape convictions—we are restless to go further—is in no small part due to his efforts. I believe that Operation Soteria is ready for a June national implementation, and Ministers in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are liaising with all the outstanding police forces to make sure they are signed up. Again, I thank him and pay tribute to him for the work he did.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Rhianon Bragg was ambushed and held at gun point for eight hours by former partner Gareth Wyn Jones after years of physical and verbal abuse. He was imprisoned in August 2019. Rhianon and I called for his parole hearing to be held in public, but the Parole Board insisted that the perpetrators’ rights override those of the victim. In the meantime, appallingly, it turns out that Ministry of Justice staff sent a dossier containing intimate details about her, including a clinical psychologist’s letter, to her abuser in prison over 10 months ago. Does the Secretary of State consider that there should be circumstances in which a victim can appeal a Parole Board decision to hold hearings in private? Does he agree that this breach of GDPR means that it is in the public interest for decisions about Jones’s release to be held in public?
Dominic Raab
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising that very important and sensitive case with me. I cannot talk about the details, but I will write to her with the answers to the questions she has raised. All I would say more generally is that she will know that we had the first public parole hearing recently, which is part of the increase in transparency that I have introduced across the board, but in particular for parole hearings. We also have that extra check on the release of dangerous offenders, particularly murderers, rapists, terrorist offenders and child killers. I hope it will have her full support when we come forward with legislation to apply that ministerial veto.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Operation Soteria report on the handling of rape cases was quietly released just before Christmas. It reports of explicit victim blaming, botched investigations and serving officers claiming sexual offences should not be a priority, and those are just a few takeaways from its 191 pages. It is a dark stain on this Government. We still have no victims Bill and no Victims’ Commissioner, so what is the Secretary of State actually achieving in post?
Dominic Raab
I will tell the hon. Lady exactly what we are doing. We have introduced a 24/7 rape support line. We have rolled out Operation Soteria in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) mentioned. We have introduced section 28 pre-recorded victim evidence across all Crown courts in England and Wales. It is precisely because we are driving forward Operation Soteria and dealing with some of the challenges in the past, particularly between police and prosecutors, that we have seen a step change. What she does not refer to is the increase since 2019, with an almost doubling of the number of police cases referred to the CPS. She does not refer to the increase by two thirds in the number of adult rape cases charged by the CPS since 2019. She does not refer to the near doubling of the number of adult rape Crown court receipts. We are restless to go forward, but she should not downgrade the efforts we are making, because that can only deter more victims from coming forward, and I do not think that is what she wants.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), for her fantastic work in this role, and in particular on the defence of human rights. On that theme, the former Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird, recently highlighted the dangers of the Lord Chancellor’s so-called Bill of Rights, arguing that it would harm women,
“affect victims of violence against women and girls and their ability to drive the police to do better”
and
“absolutely shatter any positive impact from the victims’ bill”.
Will he now listen to victims and their representatives and abandon his plans, which undermine them?
Dominic Raab
That critique is total and utter nonsense. There is not a shred of substance to it. The Bill of Rights will actually help victims of crime, not least by enabling us to deport more foreign national offenders. I look forward to bringing the victims Bill forward and having support from all Members on the Opposition Benches.
Stuart C. McDonald
That answer completely misunderstands how important convention case law has been in helping to protect victims of violence against women and girls. Even worse, in various December appearances, neither the Secretary of State nor the Prime Minister could bring themselves to rule out complete withdrawal from the European convention altogether, which would be a disaster for victims. Is this a reflection of the political weakness at the heart of Government that his ex-colleague Claire Perry O’Neill alluded to in her article yesterday, or will he come to the Dispatch Box now and categorically rule out the appalling idea of withdrawal from the convention?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman will know that our plans for a Bill of Rights retain membership of the European convention, but we have said that withdrawal is not off the table forever and a day for the future, and that remains the Government’s position.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has regular meetings with Cabinet colleagues and others to ensure a joined-up approach to tackling crime, including rural crime. Rural crime has a huge impact on those individuals and communities affected, which is why prevention, policing and prosecution are all vital to tackling rural crime, which remains a priority.
Daniel Kawczynski
I thank the Minister for that answer. I raise the question on behalf of Councillor Dan Morris and Stuart Jones, who are both farmers in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agreed that rural crime is often linked to organised crime groups who target and exploit rural communities across a range of crime types, such as organised plant and livestock theft, burglary targeting firearms, fly-tipping and poaching? Sentencing needs to reflect the serious organised criminality involved in these offences.
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend highlights a number of crimes that particularly impact rural communities—crimes highlighted in the National Police Chiefs’ Council strategy on rural crime. It is important that the courts have appropriate sentences available to them. Although sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the judiciary, sentencing guidelines are clear that offending that involves a high degree of planning or that is committed for profit, as is often seen in organised crime, will attract tougher sentences.
Dr Hudson
Rural and wildlife crime sadly continues to affect our local communities, from theft of farm machinery, fly-tipping and vandalism to the distressing theft of animals and animal cruelty. These are just some of the issues facing rural areas. Cumbria has the excellent Cumbria farm watch and horse watch schemes—partnerships between people and Cumbria police. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give my constituents that the Government are supporting the police and communities in the fight against rural crime?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the work going on in Cumbria. I pay tribute to the work of the police and crime commissioner Peter McCall and Cumbria police to tackle rural crime through Operation Lantern. Alongside Government investment in 20,000 more police officers nationally, we are supporting the police through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 by introducing new hare coursing offences and supporting the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) to prevent quad bike theft.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Fly-tipping has doubled in Barnsley during the last year, costing the local council nearly £200,000 to deal with. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues across Government to ensure that fines and sentences for fly-tipping are a strong enough deterrent?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady is quite right to highlight a rural crime that blights both rural and urban communities, but predominantly rural communities including mine in Leicestershire. We have regular discussions with colleagues in both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about issues such as this. I am happy to meet her in due course if she wants to highlight any cases.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answer to those questions. Back home in Northern Ireland the Ulster Farmers Union, in which I declare an interest as a member, have regular meetings with the Police Service of Northern Ireland to put invisible markings on machinery and to have visibility on tractors. One of the big problems is machinery from Northern Ireland and from the UK mainland going down to the Republic of Ireland. Has the Minister had any opportunity to talk to the Garda Síochána to work across the border to ensure that those criminal gangs involved in machinery theft are curtailed?
Edward Argar
I have not had any direct discussions with the Garda on this matter, but in looking at the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s rural crime strategy I have seen the work being done in Northern Ireland to highlight exactly the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises—both marking and the challenges around farm machinery. If he wants to write to me with further details from his constituency perspective, I would be very happy to receive that.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
In the Crown court, the outstanding caseload has reduced from 60,400 in June 2021 to about 57,300 cases at the end of March 2022. However, the caseload has increased again, primarily due to the Criminal Bar Association action, which has now stabilised. We are taking action across the criminal justice system to bring down backlogs and improve waiting times for those who use our courts. That includes such things as increasing our judicial capacity and investing a significant amount of money across the criminal justice system.
James Sunderland
Could the Minister outline how he intends to reduce backlogs in the family court, in order to minimise the impact on families and children both in Bracknell and beyond?
Mike Freer
The issue of family courts is particularly pressing because of the impact on families and children. That is why we are investing a significant amount of funding by increasing the number of fee-paid judges, sitting days and judges who are able to sit, and we continue to invest significant sums in family mediation vouchers, to keep families and children out of the court system.
Peter Aldous
The backlog in court cases is causing enormous personal distress and anguish. My constituent originally in 2018 reported an historical rape. The trial has now been postponed four times and is currently scheduled for this June. I shall write to my hon. Friend providing full details of the situation, but can he leave no stone unturned in eliminating the backlog very quickly, as in such historical cases, justice delayed really can mean justice denied?
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. While I cannot talk about a specific case, the allocation and listing of cases is a judicial responsibility, and I can reassure him that the judiciary continue to work to prioritise cases involving custody time limits, as well as those involving vulnerable complainants and witnesses, domestic abuse and serious sex cases. The judiciary are incredibly sensitive to the need to ensure that the most vulnerable complainants and victims get their day in court as fast as possible.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The civil legal aid review finally announced last week is an admission that cuts brought in by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 have left the civil courts, which the Minister did not even mention, in a dysfunctional state, with a third of providers out of business and longer and longer delays in proceedings. The timetable for the review takes its implementation beyond the general election, which is another abdication of responsibility for the chaos in the courts that this Government have caused. Should they not bring forward either the review or the general election?
Mike Freer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Reform of all parts of the justice system is a priority, but within the spending envelope that we are operating in, we have to spend the money where we can get the best return for our investment. If he has some serious options for how we could spend the money better, I am all ears.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Like the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), I have seen extraordinary situations with cases of serious sexual assault where the court case has been listed three years after the attack, in one case, with the victim saying, “I just want to give up and get on with my life.” This is a real challenge. Will the Minister outline what he is doing to get more judges in place, which is one of the brakes on this? When the Public Accounts Committee looked at this, we concluded on the evidence that, even with the interventions he has outlined, the Ministry will only be back on target from where it was with the backlog before covid by about 2024-25.
Mike Freer
The hon. Lady raises an important point. There are a variety of reasons why cases can be delayed. It is not just about the availability of the judiciary; sometimes it is the availability of defence and prosecution. There is a particular focus on trying to improve the number of cases that do not come forward because they are incomplete and not ready, and there is a massive campaign to improve the number of available sitting days and courts, but the most important thing is the massive recruitment of 1,000 judges for our criminal justice system.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker; it is kind of colleagues to respond in that way.
Some months ago, the Government took the welcome decision to raise the retirement age for justices of the peace from 70 to 75. However, the question of reinstatement for those previously caught by the 70 age limit has been left, I believe, to local regions, rather than a wider cohort being allowed to go back on the bench, even if they are willing to travel. Can more flexibility be put into this system, so that people can be reinstated under those circumstances?
Mike Freer
It is my understanding that this issue is subject to the oversight of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. I understand that it is very firmly on their radar and that they will use their discretion as appropriate.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Has the Minister seen the Law Society’s five-point plan to get rid of the backlog, including investing in buildings and staff and properly funding legal aid? If he has not, will he sit down with the Law Society? These people are at the heart of our justice system.
Mike Freer
I have seen the plan and I have sat down with the Law Society. The Lord Chancellor and I continue to have fruitful discussions to address the particular issues that the Law Society has raised.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is always someone else’s fault. I have listened to the Minister trying to talk up progress, but both he and I know it is not good enough. I can understand the anxiety in Government over the failure to make any real impact—at the current rate of progress, the backlog will continue into the next Parliament, if not beyond. The Minister will agree that it is bad for victims, staff and defendants and, above all, is a failure of justice. What will he do to reassure our dedicated court staff that he will get the disastrous common platform IT system sorted out? Will he confirm how much extra taxpayers’ cash is being thrown at the system to get it right?
Mike Freer
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the common platform is not a disaster. In fact, I have taken a specific interest in ensuring the roll-out is appropriate and that users are actually engaged.
Mike Freer
I have spoken to staff, who said that yes, there are teething problems—that has been admitted—but they are fully committed. They understand that the common platform is a good programme and will work. We are listening to the staff to make sure it works. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he wishes to revert to legacy systems that will collapse and make things even worse, he is welcome to make that argument.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
In May, we published our landmark draft Victims Bill and a wider package of measures to improve victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system. The Bill will enshrine the overarching principles of the victims code in primary legislation, increase oversight of criminal justice agencies’ treatment of victims and enable improvements in the quality and consistency of victim support services. The Bill will be introduced as swiftly as parliamentary time allows. Alongside those measures, we are more than quadrupling the funding for victim and witness support services by 2024-25.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The reality is that victims are not being supported. My constituent, Mr Singh, is subject to identity theft. He and his family have been held by Border Force, his immigration status is in jeopardy, his family are being placed in danger and his health records are in utter chaos. Various Ministers, Secretaries of State and one of our recent Prime Ministers have all promised action, yet not one of them has bothered to honour their word. Will anyone in this Government help Mr Singh?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady and I have worked together on previous cases. While I suspect that some elements of what she is referring to come under other Departments, hence her involving the Prime Minister and others, I am happy to meet with her to see if there is something I can do to assist.
Stephen Morgan
Only 1.5% of recorded rapes result in a charge, compared with 5.4% of all other crimes. Does the Minister accept responsibility for this, and for so badly letting down victims?
Edward Argar
We all have a shared desire to improve victims’ experiences, particularly in cases of rape and serious sexual offences. The rape review action plan set out the steps we are taking, and we are seeing continued increases and improvement in respect of total police referrals, receipts for a charge, CPS charges and Crown court receipts. There is more still to do. We are ambitious to go further, but we are making good progress and we will continue to focus on this.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for meeting with Claire, the mother of Sharlotte-Sky, before the Christmas recess to hear about the pain and anguish she has suffered through the criminal justice system in order to get justice for her daughter, who was tragically killed in Norton Green in 2021. As the Lord Chancellor heard, the problem with this case is around the taking and testing of blood when it comes to death by dangerous driving. Can we have a review to ensure that blood can be tested regardless of consent to speed up answers for victims and help police to find answers to those problems quicker?
Edward Argar
I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being able to attend that meeting as I was caught in another meeting. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has related that meeting to me, however, and I know that he and we reflect carefully on the points made in it.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
There was an unprecedented short-term rate of growth in the requirement for places in adult male prisons in October and November, and Operation Safeguard creates a contingency to maintain headroom should it be needed. Meanwhile, we press on with our programme of estate modernisation and expansion.
Clive Efford
I am grateful for that answer. The Prison Officers Association says that the lack of staff is exacerbating the crisis in prison places. The Police Federation says that Operation Safeguard puts its members and the public in danger. Napo says that there is a link between the lack of prison places and the workload crisis, which is leading to an increase in the number of recalls. If Operation Safeguard fails, where on earth will the Government go next?
Damian Hinds
As I said, Operation Safeguard is a contingency that provides additional headroom; we are not currently housing prisoners in cells as a result of Operation Safeguard. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to identify that physical capacity is one side of the coin and staffing is the other, which is why we are putting so much emphasis on recruitment and retention in the prison service.
Feryal Clark
Napo has said that the insufficient capacity to hold prisoners is directly linked to staffing and workload crises in probation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) said. Does the Minister agree with Napo’s view that there is a workload crisis in probation services? If so, who caused it?
Damian Hinds
That is similar to the point of the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). Of course, all the services are linked, but as with the Prison Service—it is a fact across many different occupations in the public and private sector—there is a very tight labour market with high rates of employment and low rates of unemployment by historical standards. Recruitment is a challenge, but we are putting a huge emphasis on recruitment into the Prison Service and probation, which fundamentally drives workload. The other side of that is, as always, making sure that we retain staff.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I do not blame my right hon. Friend for triggering Operation Safeguard—in the circumstances, it was sensible—but he would not have needed to if the 12% of the prison population who are foreign national offenders had been imprisoned in their countries of origin. The top three groups are made up of 1,300 Albanians, 800 Polish nationals and 750 Romanians. Can we have more compulsory prisoner transfer agreements so that those people are sent to jail in their own countries?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is correct that there are a large number of foreign national offenders in our prisons, and facilitating the movement back to their home country is important. We have had the prisoner transfer agreement with Albania since May 2022, and we are looking at more.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
The outstanding case load in the Crown court in Newcastle upon Tyne was 1,598 at the end of June 2022. In Birmingham, the outstanding case load in the Crown court was 1,748 and in Manchester, the outstanding case loads in the Crown courts were 1,271 and 1,259 at the end of June 2022. As I have said in previous answers, we are taking action across the criminal justice system to bring down the backlogs and improve waiting times for those who use our courts.
Kate Osborne
The Minister says that it is not a disaster, but the courts backlog has undeniably been made worse by the common platform system that Crown Prosecution Service members have been taking strike action over. It is a £300-million-plus IT scandal that has been dubbed “Horizon mark 2”; workers at my local court say that it is driving them to despair and judges have said that the system is not fit for purpose. Can the Minister confirm what cost-benefit analysis was done before making such drastic changes? What is being done to tackle the fundamental flaws in the system?
Mike Freer
First, I do not accept the characterisation of the common platform system. The hon. Lady forgets to mention the number of legacy systems that were on the verge of collapse, and they needed to be replaced. The members of staff I have spoken to accept that, while all IT roll-outs have teething problems, it is a worthwhile programme and will deliver benefits. If the hon. Lady would like to have the full implementation and benefits laid out in the business case, I will share what I can. On the ability to address the specific issues raised by members of staff, the programme team do on a regular basis engage with staff, and log all the issues and suggestions made by members of staff so that they can be resolved quickly.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Every Crown court centre in the country is affected by backlogs, which are rising to crisis proportions once more. The Government rightly resolved the issue of the availability of defence counsel by increasing defence fees, but now the issue is the continued and repeated unavailability of prosecution counsel. Since our system requires equality of arms—barristers of equal seniority and ability to prosecute and defend—is it not important that the Secretary of State and his junior Minister support the Attorney General in getting increased funding from the Treasury for equivalent prosecution fees so that we have a joined-up system?
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point, and I share his concern about ensuring that all elements of the criminal justice system, whether solicitors or barristers, are paid and rewarded appropriately for their efforts. There is a continuing debate about how we can invest in the whole criminal justice system so that it runs smoothly for all those involved, but especially for victims. I am very happy to discuss the details with my hon. Friend next week, I think, in the Justice Committee.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
While the Lord Chancellor is busy scrapping the Human Rights Act 1998, the criminal justice system is on its knees. The numbers of duty solicitors and criminal legal aid firms continue to fall at an alarming rate, yet the Government refuse to follow the recommendations of their own review of criminal legal aid, which has only worsened the courts backlog. What steps are being taken by the Government to improve staff recruitment and retention to ensure justice for victims and help reduce the courts backlog?
Mike Freer
I am very happy that the hon. Gentleman and I are meeting later today, when we can have a more detailed conversation, but the Bellamy report, which he alluded to, has been implemented. There are some elements we still want to work on to avoid any perverse incentives, but the investment this Government have made in the criminal justice system of £138 million will in our view bring the stability that he seeks.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
The proportion of persons released from custody employed at six months from their release rose by almost two thirds over the last year, and we are delivering the further measures set out in our White Paper because we know this has a huge impact in cutting reoffending.
Rob Butler
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Key to reducing reoffending is prisoners getting jobs when they are released from custody, and key to prisoners getting jobs is having employers that are willing to take on ex-prisoners, who often prove to be extremely diligent and conscientious workers. What progress are my right hon. Friend’s Department and HMPPS making to encourage more employers, including other Government Departments, to recruit ex-prisoners and so contribute to cutting crime?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a doughty campaigner on this issue. He is right about the Government, who are a significant employer and can show a lead. I can tell him that we have committed to recruiting more prison leavers to civil service roles, with nearly 200 offered or filled across Government. I am pleased to say that, in the Ministry of Justice, we have offered or filled almost 100 of those roles—not that I am competitive.
John Penrose
It is great to hear that more offenders are finding jobs after being released. Will the Secretary of State undertake to publish the outcomes and success rates of all publicly commissioned programmes to prepare offenders for work, together with an independent evaluation of their effectiveness and value for money from the evaluation task force, so everyone can learn what works and what does not, taxpayers can see whether they are getting value for money, and ever more offenders can get a second chance to put their lives back on track?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right to focus on the data. We are doing this because it gives offenders a chance to turn their lives around, but we also know that getting offenders into work can cut reoffending by up to 9 percentage points, which keeps our streets safer. We publish a range of data—there is the justice data lab, and we review international evidence—and we will certainly publish as much as we can on the Government’s website so the analysis he talks about can take place.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
But the Secretary of State must know that staff shortages in the probation service are leading to dangerously high levels of workload for the existing staff, who are then leaving in droves, creating a vicious circle against rehabilitation, putting staff at risk and also potentially the public. It has led to the chief inspector of the probation service saying his service is in crisis mode. What is the Secretary of State going to do to break this vicious circle?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the people who work in the prison and probation services are critical to driving down reoffending. We have an independent pay review body that looks at these things, which we have supported and engaged with precisely to make sure we get the balance right. We have increased funding for the probation service by an additional £155 million a year to help recruitment, and the reforms we have introduced since 2010 are working. We have reduced the overall reoffending rate from 31% under Labour to 25.6% under this Government.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
To protect the public, prisons must rehabilitate as well as punish, but under the Conservatives they have become colleges of crime: offenders going in clean but leaving as drug addicts; enrolment in rehabilitation programmes down nearly 90%; and the percentage of prisoners released with jobs to go to halved since 2010. When will the Government finally get a grip, fix our broken prison system, and keep the public safe?
Dominic Raab
I am afraid I do not accept that litany of spin. The fact is that crime—[Interruption.] No, I will tell the hon. Lady what the facts are. Excluding fraud and computer misuse, crime has been slashed by more than half since Labour left office, violent crime is down by half, and reoffending is five percentage points lower than when Labour left office. On employment, for offenders leaving prison within six months there has been an increase in one year alone since I have been in the job by two thirds. We are restless to go further. We have appointed all the chairs to the employment advisory boards in 92 prisons, we have appointed 66 out of 92 prison employment hubs, and we have appointed 91 of our 92 prison employment lead roles, which are all going to get offenders into work and drive down reoffending.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
The Government recognise that convictions based on joint enterprise appear to affect ethnic minority groups disproportionately. However, the Crown Prosecution Service can only apply the law when making charging decisions and plays no part in the decision making on individual joint enterprise cases. Data is collected on the ethnicity of defendants who are prosecuted and convicted of a criminal offence, but not on whether the crime was part of a joint enterprise. However, we are considering whether such data could be collected as part of the common platform programme.
Kate Osamor
I thank the Minister for his response but research by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies suggests that the doctrine of joint enterprise is routinely applied in a racist way leading to many miscarriages of justice. Assessing why it disproportionately targets ethnic minority communities, especially young black men, is only the first step; what is needed is urgent action. Will the Minister tell us what he is doing to right historical wrongs and prevent future miscarriages of justice due to joint enterprise?
Mike Freer
What I can do is confirm that the Government have of course implemented many of the recommendations of the Lammy review. I understand how passionately the hon. Member feels about this, so I would like to sit down with her and go through some of the specific issues she wants discussed in more depth, rather than talk across the Dispatch Box; I think that would be more fruitful and practical and I hope the hon. Member will accept my invitation.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
We are committed to ensuring faster throughput in immigration and asylum tribunals to support the Government’s priority to combat dangerous small boats crossing the channel.
Maggie Throup
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quickest way to end the use of hotels such as those in my constituency as temporary accommodation centres is to speed up the processing of immigration cases and, when cases are rejected by the courts, for the Government to act swiftly to remove failed claimants from the UK?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is part of the solution, and I am working closely with the Home Secretary on that. Our aim, working together, is to eliminate the backlog of people who claimed asylum before June 2022 by the end of this year. We will support the Home Office in delivering that so that we can end the use of hotels by 2024. Part of that is about the throughput, so we are doubling the number of decision makers in tribunals from 1,270 to 2,500. Digital can also play a role. Overall, we are driving forward that process to the ends that she describes.
Dean Russell
Further investment in the immigration process is welcome. However, last year we saw a stark increase in the number of people attempting to enter the country illegally in small boats. That is unsafe for those genuinely in need, unfair on those who moved to this country through safe and legal routes and unacceptable for the working people of the UK, including those of Watford, who foot the bill. As one of the Government’s priorities for the new year, will my right hon. Friend set out what practical steps are being considered, including by the Justice Department, to ensure that we have the most effective border in the world by 2025?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will have heard what the Prime Minister said about the five pledges, one of which is to end the small boats coming across illegally. I mentioned what we are doing with the Home Office to get the backlog down in the immigration tribunal. My hon. Friend will know about the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, and the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have also talked about further measures being brought forward shortly. Of course, the Labour party has opposed every single one of those measures. It is no surprise that, in 2010, the last Labour Government left a record backlog of asylum claims. We are the ones fixing that mess.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
The Government were elected with a manifesto to reform human rights. We have published the Bill of Rights, and we will bring it forward for Second Reading as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Munira Wilson
The Human Rights Act, which protects so many of our freedoms and basic rights and our access to justice, helped secure an inquiry into patient safety for families at Mid Staffs and empowered victims of the black cab rapist to ensure that the police were held to account when those crimes were not properly investigated. My constituents, the Secretary of State’s constituents and the wider public do not want the Human Rights Act to be ripped up. Is not the truth that, yet again, his shameful pet project to do so and replace it with a Bill of Rights has been shelved by the Prime Minister?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for at least giving me the opportunity to rebut some of the myths that are flying around. The truth is that the terrible situation at Mid Staffordshire was not brought to light as a result of a case under the Human Rights Act. It was the result of questions raised, campaigns and issues raised by hon. Members in this House. Of course, nothing in the Bill of Rights would affect any of the important expectations that people such as victims and patients have. What it will do is strengthen free speech and help us to deport more foreign offenders. She should get behind it.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
Since the last oral questions, we have published our rape review progress report, which shows that adult rape cases charged and cases received at the Crown court were up by 65% and 91% respectively compared with 2019. We have launched a 24/7 support line for the victims of rape so that we can be there to provide the support they need in their hour of need.
Today, I can announce to the House that, by the end of March, we will have installed 83 new X-ray scanners at 44 prisons to stop the inward flow of contraband.
David Johnston
I have been supportive of my constituent Sharon Gaffka’s campaign on spiking. She was spiked twice and has more than 1,500 testimonies of people aged 14 to 64 who have had the same experience. Will my right hon. Friend update me on the discussions he has been having with the Home Office about punishments and prosecutions so that we can stamp this crime out?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for his consistent campaigning on such an important issue. He will know that spiking is already a criminal offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. The primary barriers to prosecution that we have identified are suspect identification and the gathering of sufficient evidence. We are taking a range of practical measures to address that, such as reclassifying gamma-hydroxybutyric acid—the so-called date rape drug—from class C to class B, investing in projects such as safer streets and the safety of women at night fund to protect women, and working with the police to produce a forensic strategy to ensure that we have stronger prosecutions and law enforcement in this area.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
There were a quarter of a million violent assaults inside prison over the last decade. Last year alone, over 8,000 weapons were found inside prison. Does the Secretary of State accept responsibility for the fact that violence is now rife in our prisons?
Dominic Raab
I do not accept that categorisation. What I would say is that we have introduced a whole range of measures, from drug testing to X-ray scanners, and we are now seeing enforcement picking up contraband which, frankly, was not being dealt with before. Last year, the hon. Gentleman criticised the funding we are putting into X-ray scanners. I wonder whether he will now withdraw those remarks.
Steve Reed
I wonder whether drug testing is working, because drug abuse in prisons has shot up by 400% since the Conservatives came to power. Last year, crack cocaine was found being manufactured in cells inside Sudbury prison. Rising violence, rising drug abuse—does the Justice Secretary admit that the Government have lost control of our prisons?
Dominic Raab
No, and as I announced just a few moments ago we are introducing more scanners so that we detect, pick up and stop the flow of contraband into prison, whether drugs, mobile phones or weapons. We also have a step change in the approach to drug treatment. For example, we have fewer heroin addicts dumped on methadone indefinitely, and more drug recovery wings and more incentivised wings for substance-free living. That is the way to sustainably get offenders off drugs, and it also links in with all the work we are doing to get offenders into work.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can tell him that domestic burglary has actually fallen by half since 2010, and the Metropolitan police’s operational tenacity is one element of that. On sentencing, the maximum sentence is 14 years. That is obviously an individual decision for judges, but I can also tell him that since 2010 the average sentence has increased by nine months, from 22.6 months to 31.6 months. There has been a step change and an increase in sentences for burglary, as well as the measures we are taking on police and law enforcement.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
This is an important issue, and I am grateful to the Select Committee for raising it. We want the number to come down, but the right way to do that is not to let out offenders who have been deemed dangerous in the past based on legislation passed under the Labour Government that would not apply now. Therefore, we are taking every measure to ensure offenders can pass the threshold and satisfy decision makers that they are safe to be released. We will release the response to the report shortly.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
I am delighted to hear that result and I totally agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of youth offending teams. They have been a great success since 2010 in reducing the number of under-18s who are locked up. They are fundamental to helping to put young people on a better path and stopping them getting on to the path of incarceration and reoffending.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Damian Hinds
We are also locking up fewer women and that is right where it is possible to avoid incarceration. We are investing large amounts of money into an increased accommodation offer. I will absolutely look at the particular project the hon. Lady mentions and am happy to discuss it.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter. I pay tribute to her and to the family, who are very much in my thoughts. She will know that we have an extra power, which we introduced in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022; it is quite a confined power, but I will undertake to look at it in this case. Of course, I would make the broader point that when we introduced these measures to protect victims and the public, again, the Labour party voted against them.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady raises a critically important point. Of course there is nothing in our Bill of Rights that would impact on the healthcare that disabled individuals or communities would receive.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
We are determined to reduce any unnecessary bureaucratic barriers that make it harder for our police, and our criminal justice system more broadly, to work as effectively as possible. Although I am not aware of any discussions about the specific issue that my hon. Friend mentions, or about the section 29 exemption for policing under the DPA, I am aware that the Police Federation is doing some work on the issue. If he is willing to write to me with more details, I am very happy to look into the matter further.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to prison officers for the amazing job that they have done—particularly through the pandemic, but also more generally. We often pay tribute to frontline emergency service workers, but prison officers in particular are out of sight, out of mind. That is why it is so important that we followed the recommendations of the pay review body. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that since 2016 the number of full-time prison officers has increased by 3,662.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Despite IPP sentences having been abolished more than 10 years ago, 2,926 IPP prisoners were still in custody as of June 2022, of whom 608 were 10 years over their original tariff. Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of those people are locked in prison as a result of mental health conditions that they have developed while in custody, rather than because of the threat that they pose to the public?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend has raised the issue with me a number of times, and I respect his view. Of course, we have repealed the IPP legislation, but we are dealing retrospectively with the backlog of cases. I can understand some of the issues that he has raised; I think the right way to approach them is to ensure that offenders who can be released safely get the support, training and rehabilitation that they need to convince decision makers that releasing them is safe. That is the approach that we take, but I am very mindful of the issue and am continually looking at what more we can do.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Too many women and girls are victims of violent crime, yet the Government have still not delivered the long-promised victims Bill. They have also failed to appoint a Victims’ Commissioner since last September. Victims need support and the Government are letting them down. Why do the Government not prioritise victims?
Dominic Raab
I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady: we are funding victims to the tune of quadruple the level under the last Labour Government; we will appoint a new Victims’ Commissioner shortly; and the victims Bill will be coming forward as soon as parliamentary time allows. I hope the hon. Lady will also recognise the 24/7 rape support line, the increase to more than 1,000 independent sexual and domestic violence advisers, the roll-out of section 28 and the work that we are doing through Operation Soteria.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
My last meeting of 2022 was probably the most important, because I met our police chief and police commissioner to discuss rape victims in Essex. The number of prosecutions is rising but it is still far too low, and one of the factors that put women off is the long court delays. As more judges are recruited, will the Government please ensure that they focus on rape cases, so that 2023 can be the year in which women who have been raped know they will have access to justice?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend is right. In June last year, we announced—this is on top of the measures I have already mentioned—enhanced specialist sexual violence support in three specific Crown court locations where there is a high throughput of rape cases: Leeds, Newcastle and Snaresbrook. As I said earlier, we have already increased the number of rape convictions by two thirds, and we are restless to go much further in 2023.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Under this Government, an abysmal one in 100 reported rape cases results in a charge. The Government say that they want to return to 2016 charging levels, but at this rate we are never going to get there. Labour has been calling for specialist rape courts and legal advocates for victims. When will the Secretary of State finally take the action that is needed to secure justice for as many victims as possible?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue, which comes up at every session of Justice questions. In fact, the conviction rate in rape cases has risen in the last year, from 68% to 69%. The hon. Lady asked about specialist rape courts; I have just mentioned the three specialised fitted courtrooms that we have introduced in the areas with the highest throughput of rape cases to achieve exactly what she is asking for.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
In February, it will be four years since my private Member’s Bill became the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc) Act 2019, obliging the Government to introduce regulations giving coroners powers to investigate stillbirths. During Justice questions on 18 October, I asked the Minister why nothing had happened, and asked for a meeting to make progress on the issue. Three months on, still nothing has happened. Why not?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
My hon. Friend is right—he has raised this matter before—and I shall be happy to sit down with him and find out what the logjam is so that we can move this forward for him.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is simply unacceptable that drug dealers are able to continue to peddle their trade so easily behind bars. Last year, there were 17,700 cases of drugs being found in prisons, an increase of well over 411% since the Conservatives came to power in 2010. Who exactly does the Secretary of State blame for this failure in law and order?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of checking and stopping the flow of drugs and other contraband into prisons. He should speak to the shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), who, when we introduced £100 million of investment in X-ray scanners last year, said that it was a waste of money.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the existence of public spaces protection orders in some council areas. Is he also aware of a scandalous event that took place in Birmingham just before Christmas? A woman standing alone, quietly and with no protest material, outside an abortion clinic which was closed was arrested by police and asked what she was doing. When she said that she was quietly praying in her head, she was arrested and taken to a cell, and, while being questioned by police, was asked what she was praying about.
Dominic Raab
I do not know the facts of that case. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me, I will make inquiries to the extent that I am able to do so.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
In answer to Question 11, asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), what the Minister seemed to say was that he was willing to assess the racial disparities in joint enterprise prosecutions once the data was available, which it is not at present but which it will be in the near future. Am I right to draw that conclusion?
Mike Freer
What I said was that the issue was complex, and that I would be happy to sit down with the hon. Member for Edmonton to go through the exact details and the exact concerns, rather than addressing such a sensitive issue across the Dispatch Box, so that we could have a meaningful discussion and see whether we could find a way forward to resolve the underlying issues.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Five years ago, the Right Rev. James Jones reported on the experience of the Hillsborough families. My constituents and I are waiting for the Government to introduce a Hillsborough law that will change the way in which justice is delivered in this country. When will that happen? We are sick of waiting.
Dominic Raab
With regard to the independent public advocate, I am very sympathetic and I want to make an announcement on that shortly. I reassure the hon. Lady that we have been working hard across Government to get the right answer ready, to be able to provide her with the reassurance that she needs.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
My constituent, a victim of historical child sexual exploitation, has had her case postponed three times since she reported her abuse back in 2019. Each time it is cancelled, she relives the trauma that she experienced, and this has been made worse by the clerk of the court saying that only important cases were being prioritised. What percentage of historical CSE cases are delayed for four years and responded to so insensitively?
Dominic Raab
This is an acutely sensitive issue and if the hon. Lady wants to write to me about that specific case, I would be happy to look into it. Of course, listing decisions and things like that are made by the judges independently in those particular cases.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I have previously raised the case of a man who, after pleading guilty to sexual abuse, was given permission to go abroad on holiday. The Secretary of State asked me to write to him, but in the response from the Minister, the central point of concern about bail conditions was not addressed. Will the Secretary of State or a Minister say whether, in general terms, they think it is appropriate for sex offenders to go on holiday? I do not. Do they?
Dominic Raab
I would want to put public protection first and foremost, but of course it will all depend on the circumstances of any individual case.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Speed is compromising scrutiny in the magistrates court when it comes to the issuing of warrants to fit prepayment meters. In one court, 496 cases were signed off in just 3 minutes and 51 seconds, including cases involving children, disabled people and people experiencing fuel poverty. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that magistrates scrutinise every single application?
Mike Freer
I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue for families and people who can be very vulnerable. Obviously the judiciary is independent, but I will raise those concerns with the judiciary to see if I can find out the details, and stress the importance of getting it right and not rushing justice.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
What advantages does the Secretary of State see in convening a special international tribunal to try offences committed in Russia’s war on Ukraine, including the crime of aggression?
Dominic Raab
We are doing a huge amount to support the Ukrainian authorities with domestic trials. We are also one of the large group of leading countries referring the situation in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court, and in a couple of months I will be convening a meeting here with the Dutch Justice Minister and getting countries together to ensure we can avoid any impunity for Putin’s illegal and disastrous war.
Windrush Lessons Learned Review: Implementation of Recommendations
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the progress in implementing the recommendations of the Windrush lessons learned review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
Since the injustices of Windrush came to light, there has been a concerted effort across the Home Office to right the wrongs suffered by those affected. That work continues, and the Department is making sustained progress on delivering on the recommendations of the Windrush lessons learned review of 2020 and the commitments made in the comprehensive improvement plan of 2020. In her report last year, the independent reviewer Wendy Williams concluded that 21 of her recommendations had been met or partially met. She acknowledged that the scale of the challenge she had set the Department was significant and that change on that scale takes time.
We have made progress in delivering against Wendy Williams’s recommendations. In October 2022, the Home Office established the Office for the Independent Examiner of Complaints, and Moiram Ali was appointed as the independent examiner following a public appointment recruitment process. The Home Office has also held over 200 engagement and outreach events across the country, and the Windrush help teams have attended over 120 one-to-one surgeries to help people apply for documentation.
As of the end of October 2022, the Home Office has paid out or offered £59.58 million of compensation to Windrush victims. The “Serving Diverse Communities: Acting on Our Values” learning package was launched across the Home Office in June 2022, starting with recommendation 24 on learning for senior civil servants and recommendation 29 on diversity and inclusion. The learning package for recommendation 6 on the history of the UK and its relationship with the rest of the world has been designed and is undergoing final review prior to implementation.
I am pleased that the independent reviewer of Windrush progress has concluded that there are several areas in which very good progress has been made, but she rightly holds the Home Office to account for areas and recommendations where sufficient progress has not yet been made. She concludes that there can be “no doubt” that the Department has risen to the “daunting challenge” she set us.
We know there is more to do. Many people suffered terrible injustices at the hands of successive Governments, and the Department will continue working hard to right the wrongs and to deliver a Home Office worthy of every community it serves.
Stephen Kinnock
The reality is that this Government’s treatment of the Windrush generation is surely one of the most shameful episodes in our post-war political history. The Windrush community played a pivotal role in rebuilding Britain. We all owe them a debt of honour and gratitude but, instead, consecutive Conservative Governments have treated them with utter contempt. First, they were victimised under the hostile environment policy, and then they were let down by a poorly administered compensation scheme, under which just 1,300 people have been awarded compensation when the Government originally estimated that 15,000 should be eligible. Now it is reported that the Government are set to betray the Windrush generation once again by U-turning on their commitment to implementing all 30 recommendations in Wendy Williams’s lessons learned report.
In September 2021, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), restated her aim to put right the wrongs of this sorry affair, yet today we find the Government are rowing back on some of their commitments, including by refusing to hand additional powers to the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration and by scrapping reconciliation and community events.
Why are the Government so terrified of scrutiny? Their toxic combination of incompetence and indifference is failing the Windrush generation, just as it is failing the country as a whole. Given that Wendy Williams says that only eight of her recommendations have been implemented, will the Minister tell me today how many of the Williams recommendations have been implemented and how many the Government are ditching, as is widely reported by the media?
Why have thousands of the Windrush generation still not received any compensation at all? On the 75th anniversary of the Windrush landing, are the Windrush generation being betrayed by this Government once again?
Miss Dines
This Government are absolutely not betraying the Windrush generation. Successive Governments of all colours have failed to step up to the mark, but this Government are stepping up. The Windrush generation are rightly identified as British and have the right to be in this country, and this remains separate from the many narratives that have been written.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government do not comment on leaks. What I can say is that we have matched the scale of Wendy’s challenge with the scale of our ambition and delivery. Wendy acknowledges that our ambition to achieve genuine cultural change requires ongoing reflection, which is what we are doing. The Home Office has provided regular updates on the good progress, and the statistics bear out the hard work that is happening.
I am afraid that the narrative is simply not quite right. I remind the House that 4,558 claims have been received, and the total compensation offered is £59.58 million, of which more than £51 million has already been paid. Fifty-nine per cent. of claims have a final decision and, as a lawyer in my previous profession, I know that that is quite a high number. The Government are absolutely committed to righting this injustice.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is worth noting that the Wendy Williams review looked across a catalogue of issues that affected the Windrush generation. I was particularly struck by the fact that the first case listed in her initial report was from 2009. So this is not just something that has occurred in the past 10 years. On the commitment to implementing the review’s recommendations, it was very clear, certainly from my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), that the Government were absolutely committed to putting them all in place to rebuild the confidence of the Windrush generation. Could the Minister reassure me that that commitment remains and will be taken forward?
Miss Dines
I suggest that the commitment is clear to many, but there is clearly more work to be done. It is refreshing to see the amount of engagement locally that there has been. The casework reflects that. The other thing I wish to mention is that these things evolve, as they should. Dramatic changes have been brought in to make sure that the new system brought in by the Government is even more generous than before. There are many new aspects to this. For example, the introduction of new living costs allows compensation to be awarded to close family members for losses that were not previously covered under the scheme. The Government are doing more, as they should. The introduction of preliminary payments for close family members allows for part of a compensation payment to be paid earlier in the process. There needs to be more change, but we are effecting this and the Government’s commitment is unswerving—my hon. Friend is correct on that.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Whitehall sources have been quoted in The Guardian as saying:
“The Williams review is not set in stone”.
It would be a betrayal of that review and of those affected if there is to be no migrants commissioner, no reconciliation events and no extra powers for the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. The Windrush compensation scheme has been painfully slow, with at least 23 people known to have died while their claims were being processed. So will the Minister confirm that none of the planned changes will affect the already ineffective compensation scheme and that the claims still outstanding will be concluded at the earliest opportunity? What confidence can those who do us the honour of coming to these islands for sanctuary, for work, for study and for love have in this Government when the UK Tory Government ignore the terrible injustices of Windrush, fail to learn the lessons and double down on attacking their fellow human beings?
Miss Dines
The hon. Lady should not believe everything she reads in the paper because there is no end date to Wendy Williams’ appointment, she continues to review and the Government take her views very seriously. I do not accept the premise of the “delay”. These issues are dealt with sensitively. It is important not to have a knee-jerk reaction and rush. Detailed, fundamental work needs to be done and Members must judge the “delay”—or the progress, as I would rather say—by the fact that there is a 59% success rate and so much money paid out. What is important is that the engagement, which has improved over the past three to six months, has meant a dramatic increase in the number of those taking up the scheme. There is always more to do and the Government will not say that they are doing everything right, but they are 100% committed and I do not accept that there is delay or a willingness to ditch, as is implied, the independent reviewer, whose work is so important.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The previous Home Secretary rightly energetically embraced the Wendy Williams findings and pursued the recommendations. Notwithstanding those individual recommendations, Wendy Williams said that at the heart of what must change was the Home Office’s culture
“to recognise that migration and wider Home Office policy is about people and, whatever its objective, should be rooted in humanity.”
What evidence is there that that is changing and will change substantially? Is there a risk that the current problems with the migration backlog have deflected attention from dealing with the Windrush problems more urgently?
Miss Dines
The Government are very committed, as Members can see from the level of engagement. Where massive mistakes were made, where cultural change is needed, there is evidence, as Wendy Williams acknowledges, of change in attitude and culture, which has been seen with those hard workers in the civil service who deal with these claims. However, we must not conflate the issues of the Windrush generation, who are rightly identified as British and have a right to be here, with the enforcement of policies for individuals who have no right to reside in this country. That distinction has to be clear. Caseworkers will need to continue to be empathetic in the way they deal with our citizens and progress has been made.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Home Affairs Committee has spent a great deal of time looking at the Windrush scandal and the work of Wendy Williams, including a visit to the compensation scheme unit in Sheffield, because we remain very concerned about that scheme and we reiterate our call for it to be given to an arm’s length body outside the Home Office. Very worrying are reports that the Government are planning not to take forward the recommendations on the migrants commissioner or the recommendations on the extension of the powers of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, who is currently the only inspector in Government who cannot publish his reports without the permission of the Home Office, and only one out of 23 of his reports has been published on time. That comes alongside the delays in the appointment of a new modern slavery commissioner. Can the Minister confirm today that the particular recommendations around the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration will be taken forward quickly by the Government?
Miss Dines
I do not accept that there is any delay or difficulty in rising to the challenge but, as the right hon. Lady knows, the Government cannot comment in relation to leaks. The Government must be judged on what they actually do, not on worries about what journalists say might be happening. Let us wait a modest amount of time to see what the Government actually do. We must judge the Government’s record on delivery, not on speculation in The Guardian.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do the Government intend to deal with these claims on a strictly first-come, first-served basis, or are they able to exercise discretion in favour of claimants who may be more aged, more frail, but who may only have put in the claim somewhat later in the cycle?
Miss Dines
I thank my right hon. Friend for that interesting question. It is something that is worth while reviewing and I will make sure that he gets a detailed answer. What I can say is that there is an ongoing system of improvements. Glitches in terms of whether family members are entitled to money, or whether people are being dealt as appropriate for their age are serious issues. I would like to get back to him with some more detail on that.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
The Minister talks about how refreshing it is to see the engagement of local people. These local people are desperate. Their lives have been stripped away from them. It is not refreshing; it is actually disheartening. Can the Minister confirm whether the Windrush scheme will remain open, and whether additional resources will be used? At the moment, there is an 18-month delay. I am not sure about the 59% figure to which she refers. Is it the ones the Government have dealt with, or is it the ones in the pipeline in the 18-month delay? I do not know what the West Indian community have done to this Government to be treated so cruelly, so harshly and so heartlessly.
Miss Dines
I do not accept that this Government are treating those applying under the scheme cruelly or harshly. On the contrary, while this Government have made mistakes, as have successive Governments, they are doing all they can. Various improvements have raised the minimum payment from £250 to £10,000 per applicant. That is not treating people with disrespect. That is rising to the challenge.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
The Minister mentions some of the issues that have been faced by the Windrush generation. Can she update the House on the work of the cross-governmental working group and on how that has gone about addressing some of these issues?
Miss Dines
This has been an opportunity for learning. The cross-governmental work has been very valuable. On commitment, I reiterate that there has been a change in culture. Wendy Williams accepts that there has been a massive shift among those working in the community and the caseworkers. That cross-governmental work will continue in the months ahead.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The former Home Secretary promised to implement all 30 recommendations in the Wendy Williams review. It seems that we need to remind the Minister that it was a Government review, so why is that promise now being broken; it is like shifting sand? Is it therefore correct to say that the Government can no longer be trusted and have run out of time?
Miss Dines
This Government can be trusted. Again, I remind the House that the Government do not comment on leaks. That is simply not acceptable. On an issue as important as this concerning the rights of our citizens, it is simply not good enough to accept what is written in The Guardian without judging on the facts.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am sure that we are all pleased to hear from the Minister that the Government remain committed to implementing all the Williams recommendations. Presumably, therefore, the Home Office has a plan for the implementation. Can the Minister tell the House what the target date for completion of that plan is?
Miss Dines
The whole point of this work is that there is not a target finish date. That would be against the principles of continual improvement and continual financial assistance for successful applicants. It would be wholly wrong to say that we are stopping it; we are not. We are continuing and there is no target end date. We continue to work at pace.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
In the progress update that Wendy Williams published, she made it clear that the Department was at a tipping point: it could either drive forward and achieve lasting cultural changes, or abandon any commitment to change. Well, we have our answer. What does the Minister think of Wendy Williams’ conclusion that a failure to drive change would mean that it was just a matter of time before we faced another difficult outcome like the Windrush scandal?
Miss Dines
The Government greatly respect and take seriously what Wendy Williams says. There is no question of abandoning this change in culture. The change has been fundamental within the Government. It is across all Departments, not just the Home Office, because these issues attach to all Departments. The change has been dramatic and that has been refreshing to see, but there is still more work to be done, which is why Wendy Williams will continue on this most valuable work.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
If the Government are indeed still committed to the recommendations of Wendy Williams, then, obviously, the Minister can have no problem in coming to the Dispatch Box to confirm that there will be a migrants commissioner. Can she tell us when we can expect the migrants commissioner to appear and to be appointed?
Miss Dines
On that issue, I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman in relation to the timings. But I can reassure him that there is a huge commitment here, and no one should be under any misapprehension that the Government do not take the matter seriously. The issues along the way will be addressed. I am pleased with the progress that we have made but, as I have said, there is more work to be done. This is not a case of harping on; it is a case of looking at how we can best help people in the future.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Before Christmas, I asked the Home Office how many of my constituents in Erdington had applied to the Windrush compensation scheme. Shamefully, the way the Government record applications means that they cannot tell me. Now we hear that Ministers are abandoning most of the recommendations of the Windrush review. Can the Minister tell me, a child of the Windrush generation, why the Government are intent on pretending that the Windrush scandal is now behind us?
Miss Dines
I remind the hon. Lady of what I said a little while ago. The Government are not finishing a project; they do not have an end date. They continue to work on it. They are certainly not abandoning people who are part of our community and as British as everyone here. The number of claims received by the scheme was 4,558, so there is statistical analysis and proper knowledge of what is happening with the scheme. But I welcome the hon. Lady’s input. I would meet her at any time, as would the Minister who holds the brief, to discuss that further. I am very grateful to her for her question.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Five years on from the outrage of the Windrush scandal and the hostile environment, these reports of scrapped commitments and the cases of so many of my constituents, who are still harassed and persecuted by this Home Office, make it clear that this Government never had any intention of cleaning up the hostile environment towards migrants and minorities in this country. At the very least, will the Minister accept the reality that the Windrush generation, migrants and minorities have lost all confidence in this Home Office and this Government?
Miss Dines
I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I have been a junior Minister in the Home Office for just a few months, but I have not witnessed that hostile environment he speaks of. Mistakes have been made historically, but I have witnessed civil servants working together to put right this wrong. I will work hard to make sure that we continue, so that each and every citizen of our country is treated with fairness in the same way.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Human rights are universal: no class of person present in this country should be exempted from human rights protection, regardless of whether they are a British citizen. In our 11th report, “Black people, racism and human rights”, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said:
“We expect the Government to fulfil its promise to implement the recommendations from the Windrush Lessons Learned Review…as a matter of urgency.”
That was more than two years ago. Can we take it that the delay in implementing the regulations and the reports that some of them are now to be ditched are indicative of the fact that the Government are unconcerned whether their forthcoming immigration legislation is human rights compliant?
Miss Dines
It is absolutely not the case that the Government have not treated these issues with urgency. When we deal with serious issues, we have to have a rapid but detailed and reliable response. We cannot just rush ahead with something that will not work. This is about a large transformational programme of the Home Office and the fact that it has dealt with people in an unacceptable way in the past. This Government are committed to doing everything that is right. I simply do not accept that the Government are abandoning the recommendations. We are working through them very hard, and Wendy Williams has accepted that and said the Government have stepped up to the plate, to use an American form of words. There will be more work done, but the commitment is already there.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
The Minister talks about engagement, so can she please confirm why the Home Office is now refusing to hold reconciliation events despite having promised to do so?
Miss Dines
I understand that that was part of the argument put forward in the seemingly inaccurate article in The Guardian. The level of engagement has been incredibly high, and engagement is a key part of delivering the review. Home Office officials are actively engaging with internal and external organisations and staff at all levels, including unions, support networks and the Department’s race board, to ensure that the findings of the review are implemented. Across the whole community there have been many engagement exercises, but, again, it is not appropriate to comments on leaks or news articles that may not be accurate.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
One would think from the way the Minister is speaking that this was an urgent question on an article in The Guardian. This is an urgent question about a Home Office that, as the Home Affairs Committee and the Public Accounts Committee have both repeatedly pointed out, failed to recognise the pattern of behaviour despite many flags in the system, introduced a compensation scheme that then did not deliver, had to review the compensation scheme and is now goodness knows where. One of the recommendations from the Public Accounts Committee was that more work be done to identify people from Commonwealth countries other than from the Caribbean who were also impacted. Can she update the House on progress on that?
Miss Dines
It is regrettable that some of the work the Home Office has done has not been acknowledged. There has been a sea change. Things have changed. The process has been improved and there is a constant system of review; even since the August changes were made, more work has been done. I mentioned earlier the introduction of preliminary payments for close family members, which allows for part of a compensation payment to be made far earlier, meeting one of the core concerns of close family members about receiving that assistance and money. The commitment is definitely there. It has been suggested that this has now become a UQ on The Guardian, but that is because of the fallacious and inaccurate information in The Guardian that has seemingly led to these questions being asked.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned the compensation scheme, as she believes it to be an outstanding example of success. That is not the view of the Home Affairs Committee and it is not the view of my constituents applying to the scheme, who have had the most appalling experience, from the tone of the correspondence to the delays in receiving responses and the paltry sums offered for absolutely appalling travesties of justice. The Windrush scandal was the most egregious breach of trust. The full acceptance and implementation of the Wendy Williams recommendations is the bare minimum that the Windrush generation have the right to expect. Will the Minister confirm that the Home Office remains committed to implementation in full?
Miss Dines
This is about progress. I am very clear that we must compensate members of the Windrush generation and their families for the losses and impacts they suffered. Those impacts were the result of a scandal that arose under Governments of varying colours, and we must put that right. I simply do not accept the suggestion that there is no serious effort being put into implementation. I do not say everything has been a success; mistakes have been made, but improvements are also being made. We have offered and paid out almost £60 million. That is an extremely good start. It is not enough, but it is the way forward, and Wendy Williams has acknowledged that there has been significant change.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Will the Minister give the House a clear assurance that the Home Office will appoint a migrants commissioner?
Miss Dines
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. I will have to check and write to him. That is not in my brief, but I am enjoying this urgent question and listening to Members across the House. That information will be sent to him shortly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Can the Minister outline how she will apply the lessons of Windrush to the attitude of some on immigration—specifically on allowing people to work here and help to fill the gaps in industries? One of the recommendations and suggestions of the Wendy Williams review is that people should be entitled to bring their families and build a life while also building this nation, as those who came over in the Windrush generation did before them. Can the Minister confirm that that is truly the case?
Miss Dines
I can confirm that this Government are committed to treating people fairly and to putting right historical wrongs in such a way that progress is made at pace and without unnecessary delay. The Government must do what we can to protect our borders, but we must also look at those who are legitimately here. That is an ongoing process; it is a very specialist area, and the Government are committed to a change from historical wrongdoings in how people have been treated. This is a growing area, and from what I have experienced, the Government are committed to assisting those who are lawfully in this country.
Industrial Action
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Grant Shapps)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on industrial action and minimum service levels.
Nurses, paramedics and transport workers are called key workers for a reason. They truly are the lifeblood of this country; every person sitting in this Chamber is grateful for the work they do and I know everyone will agree that we cannot do without them. The Government will always defend their ability to withdraw their labour.
However, we also recognise the pressures faced by those working in the public sector. Yesterday I invited union leaders in for talks across Government, and I am pleased to say we have seen some progress. We want to resolve disputes where possible, while also delivering what is fair and reasonable to the taxpayer. At the moment, all households are struggling with the repercussions of high inflation caused by covid and Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine, and the Government are absolutely focused on tackling that.
Granting inflation-busting pay deals that step outside of the independent pay review settlement process is not the sensible way to proceed and will not provide a fair outcome. We will instead continue to consult to find meaningful ways forward for the unions, and work with employers to improve the process and discuss the evidence that we have now submitted. In the meantime, the Government also have a duty to protect the public’s access to essential public services. Although we absolutely believe in the right to strike, we are duty-bound to protect the lives and livelihoods of the British people.
The British people need to know that when they have a heart attack, a stroke or a serious injury, an ambulance will turn up, and that if they need hospital care, they have access to it. They need to know not only that those services are available, but that they can get trains or buses—particularly people who are most likely to be the least well-off in society.
I thank those at the Royal College of Nursing, who, during their last strike, worked with health officials at a national level to ensure that safe levels of cover were in place when they took industrial action. They kept services such as emergency and acute care running. They may have disagreed, but they showed that they could do their protest and withdraw their labour in a reasonable and mature way. As ever, they put the public first, and we need all our public services to do the same.
A lack of timely co-operation from the ambulance unions meant that employers could not reach agreement nationally for minimum safety levels during recent strikes. Health officials were left guessing the likely minimum coverage, making contingency planning almost impossible and putting all our constituents’ lives at risk. The ambulance strikes planned for tomorrow still do not have minimum safety levels in place. That will result in patchy emergency care for British people. This cannot continue.
It is for moments such as this that we are introducing legislation focusing on blue-light emergency services and on delivering on our manifesto commitment to secure minimum service on the railways. I am introducing a Bill that will give the Government the power to ensure that vital public services will have to maintain a basic function, by delivering minimum safety levels to ensure that lives and livelihoods are not lost. We are looking at six key areas, each of which is critical to keeping the British people safe and society functioning: health, education, fire and rescue, transport, border security and nuclear decommissioning. We do not want to use this legislation, but we must ensure the safety of the British public. During the passage of the Bill, we intend to consult on what an adequate level of coverage looks like in fire, ambulance, and rail services. For the other sectors covered in the Bill, we hope to reach minimum service agreements so that we do not have to use the powers—sectors will be able to come to that position, just as the nurses have done in recent strikes.
That is a common-sense approach, and we are not the first to follow it. The legislation will bring us in line with other modern European countries such as France, Spain, Italy and Germany, all of which already have these types of rules in place. Even the International Labour Organisation—the guardian of workers’ rights around the world to which the TUC itself subscribes—says that minimum service levels are a proportionate way of balancing the right to strike with the need to protect the wider public. The first job of any Government is to keep the public safe, and unlike other countries, we are not proposing to ban strikes, but we do need to know that unions will be held to account.
Opposition Members who object to minimum safety levels will need to explain to their constituents why, if they had a heart attack, stroke, or life-threatening illness on a strike day, there were no minimum safety standards in place—[Interruption.] I can see that they do not want to hear it, but they will also need to explain why their leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has already promised—without hearing any of these details—to stand in the way of this legislation and to repeal minimum safety levels, which are in the interests of their constituents, are in place in every other mature European democracy and neighbouring country, and would protect lives and livelihoods in this country. That is the difference between a Conservative Government who take difficult decisions to protect the welfare of our nation, and the Opposition, who too often appear to be in the pay of their union paymasters. I commend this statement to the House.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am a proud member of a trade union.
I will start by tackling the Secretary of State’s comments. The first thing that comes to my mind in this debate and in what the Secretary of State said is what happened to my constituent Bina, who waited more than an hour for an ambulance—who died waiting for an ambulance. That was not on a strike day; it was because of the disastrous chaos we have in the system under this Conservative Government. In the past few months, we have seen ambulance workers go on their first major strike in 30 years, and the first ever strike in the history of the Royal College of Nursing. Teachers, pharmacists and civil servants—among others—are balloting as we speak. His Government offer no solution because they have caused the problem.
The economic crisis made in Downing Street has left working people facing an economic emergency of sky-high inflation and recession. I notice that in his opening statement, the Secretary of State did not even mention—let alone apologise for—the fact that the Government crashed the economy. Nobody wants to see these strikes happen, least of all the workers who lose a day’s pay. How are the Government responding to a crisis of their own making? Not with any attempt to reach a serious long-term solution in the public interest, but by playing politics and promising yet another sticking plaster.
The Secretary of State claims that he made progress yesterday, but the read-out from trade union representatives was dismal. Is there any chance of a deal this year? Where is the consultation he mentioned for a meaningful way forward, or was that all for show? That is the implication of his other proposal—his sacking nurses Bill. It is an outright attack on the fundamental freedom of British working people. How can he say with a straight face that this Government will always defend the ability to strike? Can he tell us whether he stands by his article in The Telegraph last summer, in which he listed yet more plans to attack that basic right? Does he deny that he considered banning some key workers from joining unions at all? So much for levelling up workers’ rights. Where is the Government’s promised code of conduct on fire and rehire, and the long-abandoned Employment Bill that they promised would tackle insecure work?
The Secretary of State goes in one breath from thanking nurses to sacking them. That is not just insulting but utterly stupid. There is no common sense about this at all. He says that he recognises the pressures faced by key workers, but he knows that the NHS cannot find the nurses it needs to work on the wards, and that the trains do not run even on non-strike days such is the shortage of staff, so how can he seriously think that sacking thousands of key workers will not just plunge our public services further into crisis? The Transport Secretary admits it will not work, the Education Secretary does not want it, and the Government’s own impact assessment finds that it will lead to more strikes and staff shortages.
The Secretary of State says that he is looking into six key areas. What do other Ministers think about that? Will they have to disagree on that, too? He is scraping the barrel with comparisons to France and Spain, but those countries, which he claims have these laws on striking, lose vastly more strike days than Britain. Has he taken any time at all to speak to their Governments or trade unions to learn any real lessons from them?
The Secretary of State quotes the International Labour Organisation—I am surprised that he even knows what it is—but he will know that the ILO requires compensatory measures and an independent arbitrator. Are those in his Bill? The ILO also says that minimum service levels can happen in services only when the safety of individuals or their health is at stake. That does not include transport, Border Force or teachers, as he proposes.
Excess deaths are at their highest levels since the pandemic peak. The public are being put at risk every day because of the Government’s NHS crisis and staffing shortages. The Secretary of State is right that his Government’s duty is to protect the public’s access to essential services, but livelihoods and lives are already being lost. We all want minimum standards of safety, service and staffing; it is Ministers who are failing to provide that. Does he not accept that trade unions and workers already take steps to protect the public during action? He singles out ambulance workers. Paramedics agreed to operate life and limb deals on a trust-by-trust basis, as he knows, to ensure that the right care continues to be delivered. He should know that service levels were at 82%, with ambulance workers consistently leaving the picket lines to make sure that emergency calls were responded to. He is threatening to rip up that protection, and for what?
Let us look into what this is really all about: a Government who are out of ideas, out of time and fast running out of sticking plasters; a Government who are playing politics with nurses’ and teachers’ lives because they cannot stomach the co-operation and negotiation that are needed; and, a Government desperately doing all they can to distract from their economic emergency. We need negotiation not legislation, so when is the Minister going to do his job?
Grant Shapps
It is almost as if covid and the pressures on the NHS never occurred, according to the Opposition. I am pretty sure I heard this straight. It is almost as if Putin did not invade Ukraine, force up energy prices and force up inflation, and it is almost as if the right hon. Lady does not think that the rest of Europe is going through exactly the same thing. I was just reading an article in The Guardian saying exactly that—that other health services are experiencing exactly the same problems.
If we are going to have a sensible debate and start working from the facts and then have a discussion, we ought to acknowledge that covid and the war in Ukraine have had a huge impact on health services here and around the world. Then we can go on to have a sensible conversation about balancing the right to strike. As I said at the top of my speech, it is a right that we fully respect and fully endorse. We believe it is part of the International Labour Organisation’s correct diagnosis of a working economy that people should be able to withdraw their labour, but that should not mean withdrawing their labour at the expense of our constituents’ lives. The right hon. Lady talks about how the ambulance service, in her words, has been reasonable and offered back-up on a trust-by-trust basis if people have heart attacks and strokes, but heart attacks and strokes do not accept or work to the boundaries of trust borders. They work nationally, and so to manage the ambulance system, we need to know that each and every one of our constituents is protected. To deny and to vote against legislation that brings in minimum safety levels to help our constituents is to attack their security and their welfare.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
With the Opposition completely unable to control their own MPs and stop them from joining picket lines or to give a straight answer on whether they support the strikes, we can clearly see which Members of this House are on the side of the public. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we have today are fair and proportionate measures equivalent to what is already in place in a number of other European countries, such as France and Spain?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is worth the House reflecting on the fact that the police were banned from striking in 1919, and that agreement has been in place for more than 100 years. It would have been possible for a Minister to come to this Dispatch Box and say that we would do the same with ambulance workers and perhaps with firefighters, but that is not what we are proposing today; we are proposing to bring ourselves in line with other modern European economies. It makes every bit of sense to ensure that if strikes are going to occur, our constituents’ lives are protected with minimum safety levels. Frankly, it is extraordinary that anyone would argue against.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
This Government have already created the most restrictive and anti-trade union laws in Europe. This new right-wing culture war stinks, and they are using ambulance cover as a pretext to attack workers’ rights. It was the Tory membership that gave us a Prime Minister who tanked the economy overnight, put people’s mortgages up and gave us high inflation, yet it is the Tories who continue to demand that public sector workers take the hit to balance the books.
Everyone can see the irony of the Tories clapping key workers and now giving them a pay cut and threatening them with the sack for future action. Does the Secretary of State really think that ordinary people support Tory plans over the nurses? Does he realise that the public can see Pat Cullen and Mick Lynch destroying their arguments and soundbites? Does he understand that train commuters, who already suffer from appalling service, will be raging when they find out how much money train companies are making from strike days, paid for by taxpayers? How much money has been paid to train companies that could have gone to workers instead?
It has not been easy for the Scottish Government, but they have negotiated better pay settlements for Police Scotland, train crews and NHS workers. It is something that the Royal College of Nursing would be willing to discuss with the UK Government. Those actions were commended by the unions, but not even acknowledged by Labour. There are no ambulance strikes in Scotland, and that has been done within a fixed budget and negotiations with one hand tied behind our back. Now, despite working with the unions, Scotland is to have the same anti-worker or anti-union legislation imposed on it, against the wishes of the Scottish Government. It is an imposition made easier by the Labour party agreeing with the Tories that workers’ rights should remain with Westminster and not be devolved to Scotland. We do not want to be part of plans designed to sabotage workers’ rights. This situation has clearly shown once again that if Scotland is to become a fairer, more equal country that respects workers’ rights, the only way to do so is to become a normal independent country.
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman tries to push the argument that somehow this legislation will take us out of step with other European countries, and I have already explained that it is we who are out of step with what already occurs elsewhere in Europe. If we go beyond Europe, he will be interested to hear that in Australia, Canada and many states in America, blue-light strikes, as we would call them, are banned entirely. We are taking a moderate, sensible approach. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would wholeheartedly support protecting his constituents in that way. While we are taking lectures from him about how the Scottish Government handle these things, I could not help noticing that Scottish primary school teachers are on strike and secondary teachers go on strike in Scotland on Wednesday.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Strikes have a disproportionate impact in rural Britain, where there are no other modes of public transport. The nearest alternative hospital may be more than 60 miles away and ambulances have already travelled far further to get there, and that is without mentioning the vacancy rates in public services, which are so high due to our housing crisis. Can my right hon. Friend confirm how these measures will help support rural communities?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right. These so-called forever strikes, which have continued for month after month on the railways, are particularly hurting rural communities. It is easy sometimes for people to imagine that those affected will just sit at home on Zoom or Teams and have those conversations. That view of the world is much easier for someone in a desk job, perhaps in management. It is much harder for someone in a rural community or for a hospital porter or cleaner who needs to get to the hospital. The very people being hurt most by these strikes that never seem to come to a conclusion on the railways are the hardest-up in society. This Government will stand behind them with minimum service levels.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
One minute the Secretary of State is clapping the key workers, and the next he is sacking them. What is really behind this legislation? Only time will tell, but why is he looking to criminalise the great key workers who brought us through this pandemic, and whose only crime is to demand decent wages and terms and conditions, as well as a safe environment for themselves and the general public?
Grant Shapps
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is an enthusiastic supporter of everything that the unions do, and they are an enthusiastic supporter of the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] Perhaps not all of them. But if one of his constituents has a heart attack, stroke or serious accident on Wednesday, I do not understand why he would seriously have an objection to a national level of agreed safe services? That is what we propose and I am surprised that he would vote against the safety of his own constituents.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend try to impress on Opposition Members, who keep referring to this as an anti-union measure, that public support for the unions will be endangered if they do not preserve minimum services for people whose lives are at risk?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are trying to correct a problem that is very current. Ambulance workers and the unions have not provided a national level of guaranteed safety for the strike that is due on Wednesday. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches could help us get that in place across the economy, particularly in vital services, so that even though we take this primary power, we never need to use it. That would be the ideal solution. Why do they not help us bring safety to their constituents, which would help both them and the unions?
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has said that he supports the right to strike—by banning workers from striking. Does he not see the ridiculous position he has got himself into? The whole point of having an assessment of policy is to find out whether it will work. When the Government are told that their policy is bonkers, the sensible thing to do is to bin it. Where does he think declaring war on working people will end?
Grant Shapps
As I have mentioned a couple of times at the Dispatch Box, the hon. Gentleman will need to explain his position to his friends and colleagues in countries as radical as France and Spain, where they have these rules in place and act already. On the impact assessment, which is a point that has been made several times, including from the Opposition Front Bench, the final impact assessment—which will come through primary legislation, with secondary legislation in the form of statutory instruments to bring it into place—is yet to be published, so he is wrong about that as well. How can anyone seriously argue that guaranteed rescue by ambulances of somebody who is seriously ill could have a harmful impact? It is simply beyond belief.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Coming back through Heathrow recently, I spoke to someone who works there who praised the armed forces for the incredible job they did covering Border Force, and told me how the process worked without any problems at all, and what a sad reflection it was on the public service that they could not do the same thing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members, the unions and many who work in the public service seem to have forgotten that we spent £400 billion safeguarding their jobs, their futures and their careers?
Grant Shapps
I pay tribute to the Army, who did fantastic work. The Army has a no-strike clause already, along with the police. Once this primary power has been taken, it will be for Secretaries of State, including the Home Secretary, to determine and consult in other areas for secondary powers to bring in minimum service levels. Most people working in the public service are doing a hugely valuable job. They are trying to do their best, and many are frustrated by their radical union leaders who often lead them up the garden path.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The right hon. Member asked whether we acknowledge the impact of covid and Ukraine. Of course we do—we live with it every day. All our constituents live with it every day. All those working in the NHS and the ambulance service live with it every day. He says that the British people need to know that an ambulance will turn up when they have a heart attack, a stroke or a serious injury, and that they will have access to hospital care. Does he not agree that a better way of ensuring that is to deal with the actual problem: to invest, recruit and retain staff in the NHS and the ambulance service, and provide the service that is being cried out for not just by us but by those people? Rather than tinkering about with what cannot solve the problem, fixing it might be a better way.
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady is right in the sense that we have seen huge backlogs because of covid. We are hiring a lot more nurses as a result—thousands more since 2019. We are also funding the healthcare system more than ever in history with some £168 billion. As the Prime Minister described in his speech last week, bringing down those waiting lists is his No. 1 priority. We are doing all those things as well, but it is undeniable that not having a minimum safety level in place during strike days puts lives at risk. This Government will take the responsible decision to prevent that from happening in future.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
It is important to remember that public sector workers are employed and paid for by the great British taxpayer. I sympathise with some of their demands, but does my right hon. Friend agree that their first loyalty should be to the British taxpayer, not some power-crazed union barons who fund the Labour party and have, in the past, paid off Labour MPs’ mortgages?
Grant Shapps
I pay tribute to those in the NHS: there is a very good reason why, when the public sector in this country got a zero pay rise last year because of covid, over 1 million people in the NHS did receive a pay rise. At the moment it is worth about £1,400 per individual. I appreciate that in these times, with Putin’s evil war and the impact that has had on inflation, everyone would like more money as a pay rise, but the Government must consider what that would do to people’s taxes, to interest rates and to mortgage rates. We would get into a circle where we are never able to get inflation down. Inflation is the biggest evil of all. We are taking sensible steps to address it. That lot over there simply want to roll over and not address the difficult problems.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
With the Royal College of Emergency Medicine highlighting more than 300 excess deaths every single week, where is the Government’s minimum service level agreement to the public? The best way to avert a strike is to negotiate. Within the Secretary of State’s legislation, what obligations will there be on Government to enter meaningful negotiations, and how does he describe “meaningful”?
Grant Shapps
I want to pick up the hon. Lady on those figures, because the NHS itself says that it does not recognise those numbers. When we have a strike such as the one on Wednesday by ambulance workers, there is no way that she or anyone else in this House can realistically argue that people will somehow be better off without a national minimum safe level of service. That is what we will focus on, and that is why she and Opposition Members should support this Bill.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
My right hon. Friend was right to mention other European countries, but he could have added to that list South Africa, Argentina, Australia and Canada, all of which are members of the International Labour Organisation and have minimum service levels in essential services. In every single case, the ILO has reviewed the MSL and determined it to be a necessary and proportionate restriction of the article 11 right to strike. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British people are entitled to exactly the same lawful protection and to have their basic needs met at times of industrial action in essential services?
Grant Shapps
It is worth reminding the House that my hon. Friend is an acknowledged expert in employment law. I am grateful for her thoughts and clarification that the International Labour Organisation says that the legislation is compatible with article 11. I have been able to sign off the European Court of Human Rights compatibility on this measure. As she rightly points out, it is not just friends and neighbours in Europe but around the world where strikes are, in many cases, banned—not what we are proposing—and minimum safety levels are in place. There is nothing illegitimate about what we are doing. It fits with the ILO, and who signs up to the ILO? The TUC and many other unions besides.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Every single concern that the Secretary of State and all those on the Government Benches have raised so far is already covered by existing legislation, because trade unions are legally obliged to provide life and limb cover. That is the existing law. Will the Secretary of State tell us what the difference is between that and his proposed legislation? That will be the test of whether the new legislation is an attack on workers.
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, which I am pleased to answer. When strikes are taking place tomorrow and we are not able to get a simple answer to the question of what the national level of emergency cover will be for people in the most urgent situations—heart attacks, strokes and other life-threatening ailments—that is why we need minimum safety levels. When for many, many months, some of the poorest in society have been unable to go to work to earn their own living, perhaps as a cleaner or a hospital porter, that is why we need minimum service levels on our railways. I very much hope he will see the point and help to represent his constituents who are being prevented from earning money or, indeed, from being safe, should they have an accident tomorrow.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Last week I met Daniel Jobsz, who runs the Wardrobe Bar and Kitchen in the City. He did not open last week; he said there was no point, because of the rail strike. Before Christmas, he lost tens of thousands of pounds because people were cancelling, as they could not come into central London because of the rail strike. UKHospitality calculates that around £1 billion of business was lost in central London because of the rail strikes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is right to protect the right to strike, there must be legislation in place to protect businesses in other sectors, such as hospitality, and to protect workers from job losses?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and it brings me on to an important consideration, which is the disparity between the public sector settlements on offer and the average in the private sector at the moment, which has typically been lower. It is right that, as a responsible Government, we have to balance off all these different considerations across the economy. It is right that we consider those running small businesses—tea rooms, pubs and the services sector—in this balance, which is why minimum service levels, as well as minimum safety levels, are right for this economy.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I have listened carefully to what the Secretary of State has had to say, and however he tries to dress it up, this is part of an alarming authoritarian drift. We have an attack on the democratic right to strike, an attack on the democratic right to vote through attempted vote rigging, with the introduction of voter ID, and an attack on the democratic right to peaceful protest. Is the Secretary of State not ashamed to be a member of the most authoritarian Government in Britain in living memory?
Grant Shapps
I have heard some stuff at this Dispatch Box, but the idea that this is the most authoritarian Government—has the hon. Gentleman seen what happens in truly authoritarian states, particularly in Marxist states? It is a ludicrous claim about British democracy. Actually, he can help, with his many union links, because all we are saying is that we will take powers to ensure that the minimum safety level exists. We are saying at the same time that we do not need to use these powers; we simply need to get agreement for his constituents and for all our constituents that on a strike day, an ambulance will be able to turn up because national levels have been agreed. That is it, and he should get on board and support this.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Last week, rail users in Guildford trying to get in and out of the constituency, including key workers, were completely cut off because there were zero trains. At no point have the Opposition condemned widespread strike action that disrupts the public. Will my right hon. Friend join me in asking the Opposition to back the measures we are putting forward, to keep the public safe and to keep our economy going and growing?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are on the side of people who are working hard, who are trying to get on with their lives and livelihoods, and who are concerned about their lives when it comes to emergency services. Who are Opposition Members interested in? Not once have I heard them condemn these strikes, which have been inflicted on people’s lives month after month—not a word from the Opposition. When we try to bring in even the most moderate and considerate legislation, which simply says that we will ask for a minimum safety level, what do they do? They object to it and attack their own constituents in the process.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. May I gently remind Members that Mr Speaker has determined that anybody who came in five minutes after the start of the session will not be called?
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I know that the Secretary of State likes to fly around in his own private plane, but I can tell him for a fact that while he has been doing that, many nurses in my constituency have been accessing food banks. This Government seem very uncomfortable with nurses standing on picket lines but totally relaxed about them lining up to get food for their families at food banks. If this Government are serious about stopping the strikes, surely now is the time to pay these essential workers properly.
Grant Shapps
I would be interested to hear from those on the Labour Front Bench whether it is their policy to pay a 19% pay rise and, if so, whether they can explain how they will raise the extra money. Will it be extra taxation? Will they be putting it on borrowing, with all the hikes in interest rates, mortgage rates, car loans and the rest of it that that would bring? That is the question they need to answer, and the more they waffle around the subject, rather than bringing forward serious measures to limit the impact of these strikes at the most serious point—the life and death point—the less they will get the respect of the general public.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring forward these proportionate measures, and not least in the urgency with which he seeks to protect the safety and lives of all our constituents at risk from strike action. Children have suffered in these strikes; many children in Buckinghamshire use the railways to get to school. Does he agree that when the consultation comes forward, the ability of children to get to school on the railways must be included in the minimum service levels?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have talked about workers getting to work and people losing their salaries because of these strikes, but children and their education are also being impacted. That is a crying shame, particularly after two years of covid and having to study from home, and now they are being put through this again when there is a decent offer on the table for the railways. When union bosses have actually put this offer to their members—the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, for example—they accepted it, and it was a very similar offer to the ones that the RMT and other unions refuse to put to their members. We just need some common sense from these unions and, I hope, a little pushing from Opposition Members.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Can the Secretary of State not just for once acknowledge the stress levels of workers—postal workers, rail workers, health workers and teachers—who have had 10 years of frozen pay and 10 years of reducing living standards and are going through enormous stress at work, with many leaving the teaching and nursing professions as a result of it? Nobody is likely to vote to take strike action unless it is an act of desperation; they do it because they want to get decent pay for themselves, their loved ones and their families. Can he not for once face the issue of the poverty that people face, rather than trying to bring in draconian laws to prevent people from taking effective action to remedy the injustice that they are facing?
Grant Shapps
It is obviously not true that there has been a pay freeze for 10 years. The right hon. Gentleman stands there and makes that claim, but as I just mentioned, because the NHS was under huge pressure during covid, 1.2 million nurses and workers in the NHS were provided with an uplift of £1,200 last year, with £1,400 proposed this year—at the time, inflation was low—even though the rest of the public sector was not receiving pay increases. He talks about stress for public sector workers, and I recognise the hard work and the hours that they put in, particularly in the NHS, which is why we have expanded by many thousands the number of nurses, for example, but what about the stress for people who cannot get to work because of these strikes and have not been able to for months? What about the stress for people who are waiting for an ambulance when we do not have nationally agreed safety levels in place? That is the stress I am also worried about.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that when unions such as the RMT reduce their customary referendum period from 14 to six days to force through a false ballot result to strike and then go to strike straightaway, against what are necessarily the wishes of all members, this is an important statement to make and an important piece of legislation? Will he confirm how promptly he will bring forward this Bill?
Grant Shapps
The Bill is being introduced today. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about this. We have seen that the RMT has not put the offers to its members, which, as I mentioned before, is a real problem. When the TSSA put an almost identical offer to its members, it was accepted and the strike was therefore over. Any attempt not to allow members to see the full range of what is being offered is wrong. Because members have not seen the full offer, they will be unaware of the different elements of that offer. It has not been formally put to them—that is something the unions can change immediately. I very much hope that they do so.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I noticed a moment ago that the Secretary of State said that striking workers were in danger of pushing up interest rates. I remind him that many of those people are on strike because they cannot afford their mortgages or rent as a result of the hike in interest rates caused by his colleagues’ economic incompetence. I imagine that many essential workers are in receipt of the sort of wage that the Secretary of State would not get out of bed for in the morning.
On the legality of the legislation, the TUC general secretary has said that forcing workers who have democratically voted to strike to work and sacking them if they do not comply would almost certainly be illegal. Is that not right? Can the Minister really say that the detail of his Bill will comply in every respect with the United Kingdom Government’s obligations under both the ECHR and international labour law? On the detail, Minister, what is the position?
Grant Shapps
I do not know whether I am correcting myself or the hon. and learned Lady, but I was not saying—I did not mean to say, at least—that striking workers pushed up interest rates. It is inflation that pushes up interest rates. If we paid a 19% increase across the economy, we would have to borrow the money; we would then have more borrowing and more debt and, therefore, higher interest rates. Everybody would pay more on their mortgages and car loans. Businesses would pay more. That is the quite simple maths that I would have thought we have tested to destruction. It would not make sense to go ahead along those lines.
The hon. and learned Lady asked specifically about the ECHR, and I can confirm that the Bill is ECHR-compliant. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), who is no longer in her place, talked about employment law and how the Bill fits with the ILO and the ECHR; I have been able to sign that declaration. I can further confirm that there is proof of this, as many neighbouring countries already do exactly the same thing, which is also compliant with the ECHR.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I proudly put on the record my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a former teacher and a former trade union member and representative for the NASUWT. I am very worried seeing teachers going on strike, because it is the pupils who will suffer most, particularly disadvantaged pupils from areas such as Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. While I am a huge admirer of the incredible work that teachers do, they are sadly being cajoled out of the classroom by baron bosses in unions such as the “Not Education Union”, led by Bolshevik Bousted and Commie Courtney, along with their Labour mates, to make sure that kids continue to suffer. What can we do to ensure pupils will not be victims any further?
Grant Shapps
Minimum levels of service in education and elsewhere will of course help. Again, I want to stress to the House that we do not necessarily want or wish to introduce legislation in all these areas; that will be a matter for the House in secondary legislation and for further consultation. I very much hope, though, that this legislation gives the unions and some of their supporters in this House the opportunity to stop and think about whether minimum safety is appropriate in their particular areas. I very much hope that teachers will hold back from the threshold of strikes, which would be damaging to them and to pupils.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Nurses’ pay down 20%, teachers’ pay down 20%, firefighters’ pay down 12%, junior doctors’ pay down 26%—these are the consequences of 13 years of Tory rule. Let us be honest and talk about the real problem here: it is not workers going on strike, but the Tory Government and the economy they have built, which forcers workers to strike. This new anti-worker law would make things even worse, sacking teachers and nurses for striking for fair pay. Surely the easiest, safest and fairest way of guaranteeing minimum service provision is to pay nurses, firefighters and paramedics a decent wage with good conditions and the resources to do their jobs. Why will the Secretary of State not do that instead?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady might want to inquire of Members on her Front Bench—most of them are gone now, but one or two are still here—whether they would support a 19% pay increase. If they would, nice as that would be to do, how would they explain it to their constituents and to the financial markets as interest rates rise? If they would spread that across the entire economy, what would the impact be on the economy at large? Those are the simple but, unfortunately, difficult decisions that need to be made in government. Frankly, Labour’s failure to answer those basic questions is why it is not ready to run this country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is not often I get called to speak before halfway through, but I am very pleased to have been called. The sentiments expressed inside this Chamber about seeking a solution do not appear to match the negotiations outside of it. As the Secretary of State will know, for many NHS staff, this is about not just money, but safety on the wards. Many nurses have stated that they would be happy with additional staff to lighten the load along with a modest pay rise to cover the cost of living. Will the Secretary of State indicate what assessment has been made of safety on the wards in the light of ongoing action? Will the Secretary of State guarantee safety and a cost of living wage increase?
Grant Shapps
Of course, one reason that we have employed tens of thousands more nurses and doctors is to help to relieve the pressure post covid. We all understand that, given what happened with covid and what is now happening with flu, which is the worst it has been for 10 years, we are seeing particularly strong pressures on our hospitals. The point I am making today is that none of this is helped by the uncertainty. It is fine for workers to withdraw their labour—it is obviously a last resort, but we understand it—but please, give us an indication or a guarantee of where the safety level will be, and do so on a nationwide basis. In fairness to the Royal College of Nursing, it has done that. The ambulance unions, I am afraid, have not. We invite them to do so.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Government’s failed industrial relations approach has led to the worst strikes in decades. Sadly, they have often sought to scupper talks by throwing in last-minute spanners. Now, they propose going from clapping nurses to sacking nurses. The Secretary of State will be aware that the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill’s impact assessment stated that imposing minimum service levels could actually lead to an “increased frequency of strikes”. What exactly has changed in the past two months since that was published?
Grant Shapps
First of all, no one is talking about sacking nurses. I have just checked the figures: we have more than 44,000 more nurses since 2010, and more than 34,000 more doctors. There has been a big increase even from 2019. Nothing in the Bill we are announcing today is about getting rid of nurses, any more than any employment contract has to be followed. It is worth remembering that the pay that is on offer is as a result of the independent pay review body—bodies that the unions themselves called to be set up 20 years ago—being put into action.
I have heard union bosses make the point about last-minute spanners, which is completely untrue. I seem to be living rent free in Mick Lynch’s head at the moment—I have not even been close to these negotiations. The deal on the table is the same discussion that has always been there. Rather than parroting those lines, the hon. Gentleman might do better to check the facts and encourage the unions to put these offers to their members.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
When the Tory party spoke about taking back control, none of us thought that would mean suppressing votes with voter ID legislation, a policing and crime Act that curbs the right to protest, a House of Lords with unelected clerics and a Government who are withdrawing the basic fundamental human right to strike. How much longer will this Government continue to claim that this silly little island is a functioning democracy?
Grant Shapps
I am pretty sure the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber from the beginning, otherwise you would not have called him to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. He will therefore have heard me say, not once or twice but three times now, that this legislation is compatible with the International Labour Organisation rules that the unions themselves sign up to and many of our European neighbours follow. I am struggling to follow the hon. Gentleman’s argument that this is somehow unfair, undemocratic or against international law.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
From the way the Secretary of State is speaking, one might think he is the knight on a white charger coming to rescue the system. Let us be clear, however, that it was this Government who froze pay in the public sector and then increased it below inflation, and this Government who reduced recruitment in the national health service, particularly among nurses, where we have a recruitment gap of 40,000. What we are actually hearing is chickens coming home to roost, isn’t it? He ought to take responsibility as a Minister in this Government.
Grant Shapps
I simply make the point that it is not the case that we have frozen recruitment, because we have 44,000 more nurses, not fewer—that is an increase rather than a decrease. It is also not the case that we have frozen pay, other than during the aftermath of the financial crash, which as I recall happened under the Labour party and we had to pick up the pieces, and through covid, although not all the way through covid, as I mentioned. Last year, even while the rest of the public sector was experiencing a pay freeze, we made an exception for NHS workers and paid them more, so the hon. Lady’s narrative is simply not true. Again, if the Opposition are saying that they would pay 19% more, I do not understand where that money would come from and whose taxes would be raised to pay for it and the increased interest rates.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is astonishing: I did not realise that, when we were making the comparison with France and Spain, we were talking about Franco’s Spain and the Vichy regime in France. Many elements of the laws in this country already do not comply with ILO regulations; we are one of the most restrictive anti-worker countries in the world—that is a fact.
I and my constituents would like the Government to stop blowing up the talks with the trade unions, as they did against the NHS over the weekend, with Unite reps coming out of that meeting in a worse state, or against the RMT by dropping driver-only operation into the talks. The Government could end the strikes in multiple sectors; instead they have upped the ante to wage war on working people who are suffering because of their rancid governance.
Grant Shapps
At least we know where the hon. Gentleman stands: against the instructions of his Front Bench, it is on the picket lines. He is one of the people who has helped to extend the rail strikes. Driver-only operation has been in there from the outset and there has been no change in that at all. It makes perfect sense and operates on the line that my constituency is on. It causes no problems and is a safe way to operate. It is the kind of modernisation that would help to bring this industrial dispute to a close. I did not follow his point about Franco and the Vichy Government. Spain and France have moved on a bit from that and seem to manage to have minimum safe levels of service on strike days under the International Labour Organisation.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Secretary of State opened his statement with warm words about our key workers, but he will be acutely aware that the longer the Government refuse to address their fair pay demands, the more staff morale will be depleted and the more people will leave the service, which will exacerbate the staffing crisis that the unions have highlighted as part of their demands. Does he not see that standing there and lecturing about safe staffing levels when healthcare workers across the UK are saying that staffing levels are unsafe is frankly ridiculous? The way to ensure staffing at all times is to pay our healthcare workers properly.
Grant Shapps
Of course we want to see healthcare workers paid, and I meant the words that I used at the top of the statement. Hon. Members will remember that my father was ill during covid, so I experienced the NHS at its best and most heroic while it was struggling to serve people under almost unbelievable pandemic circumstances. I absolutely agree with her about the incredible work that NHS staff do. There is a pay offer on the table that has not been invented by the Government—it has come from the independent pay review body. The Government have accepted in full and in every circumstance the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies this year. Those who say that we should ignore the independent pay review bodies need to explain why and where they will find the money to do that so that it is fair to other taxpayers.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
This statement is an attack on fundamental employment rights. More than 12 years of Conservative Government failure to invest in vital public services has led to nurses, ambulance crews, civil servants and transport workers taking industrial action. I stand in solidarity with them. If the Government wanted to protect the levels of public services, they would give them the funding and staffing that they need instead of running them down. Why are the Government determined to run down our public services and national health service? Why will Ministers not engage in proper negotiations to end the disputes?
Grant Shapps
In the politest possible way, I think that once we have been going for an hour, some of the questions that were written in advance and possibly even handed out by the unions have been categorically disproved—as I have explained many times, this is not against international law or the ECHR, for all the reasons that I have already covered—but they continue to be read out as if they are a new contribution. Those questions ignore the basic fact that there is another side to the issue, which is the safety of the hon. Lady’s constituents and ours. Tomorrow, when there is an ambulance strike and the unions refuse to commit to national safety levels with the management of the trusts, everyone’s life will be more at risk than it should be. It is perfectly reasonable to introduce what happens throughout much of the rest of the world, and certainly our European neighbours, and to have minimum safety standards in place so that we can protect the public.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Government intend to use minimum service levels to force workers to work against their wishes, which undermines their legitimate disputes and imposes servitude on workers. The safest level of provision is to pay our firefighters, nurses, teachers, paramedics and rail staff a proper decent wage and to give them the appropriate resources to do their jobs effectively. Why does the Secretary of State need a new law to help the Government to effectively drive down the wages of the key workers in vital services who he clapped during the pandemic?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady described people as working in “servitude” if there are minimum service levels, but I point out to her that they would be paid for that servitude. At Network Rail, the average worker is on £46,000 of servitude and the average is £62,000 of servitude for train drivers. If we are going to have a serious debate about minimum service levels, I should say that they are designed to ensure that school kids can get to school again; that office workers, who may be on lower pay, can get to their job; and that the constituents of Members across the House can be guaranteed minimum safety levels during a strike tomorrow. The idea that that is somehow enforcing servitude is absolute nonsense.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Government Members talk about hard-working members of the public, but will the Secretary of State acknowledge that trade union members are also hard-working members of the public? Will he confirm whether the reported £320 million has been paid to the train operators during these strikes because they are indemnified? How much of that £320 million would it have taken to settle the strikes? We have heard a lot about safety measures today, so when will the Government stop trying to force through driver-only operated trains, and when will the NHS get the workforce strategy that it desperately needs?
Grant Shapps
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) reminds me that driver-only operated trains were introduced under the Labour Government. They are entirely safe; as I mentioned, they operate on my Govia line and I have never had a single constituent come to me to say otherwise. The hon. Lady asks whether trade union members are hard-working; I absolutely agree that they are. Many of them work extraordinary hours, as I already said, particularly in the health context but across the economy.
A responsible Government have to balance the pay in the public sector with the pay in the private sector and across all elements of the economy, which is why we have the independent pay review bodies. Unless the Opposition are now trying to destroy the independent pay review bodies and say that we should ignore them and go beyond what they say, I do not see a better alternative.
The hon. Lady fundamentally misunderstands the way that the railways operate in this country: the receipts are collected and the train operating companies simply receive the money for operating the service.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and I proudly supported picketing workers at Glasgow Central. Not only did we not have to ask for permission, but nobody was photoshopped out of the photograph. Avanti West Coast and TransPennine can barely deliver a minimum service as it is. The Smith commission could have devolved employment rights to ensure that the right to strike was sacrosanct and fire and rehire was banned, but Labour blocked it. Mick Lynch has said that Scottish Ministers “want to resolve” issues, but “politicians down here” want to “exacerbate” them. Is it not therefore the case that Scottish workers will be fully protected only with independence?
Grant Shapps
Well, I never expected that contribution from the SNP Benches. I should just point out to the hon. Member that I would never knowingly remove the former Prime Minister, whom I served enthusiastically, from anything I put out. He makes a point about Scottish independence, somehow shoehorned into a statement about minimum safety levels, but his constituents will be among the first to benefit when there are national strikes and we are able to run a minimum safe level of service, for example, between ambulances and the hospitals.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The measures outlined today represent a profound attack on the right of key workers with whom the Government are still in active negotiation. The Government’s strategy is clear: when they cannot get what they want through negotiation and compromise, they simply legislate to get their own way. However, does the Secretary of State accept that these proposals risk breaching human rights legislation and potentially even modern day slavery law? Will he concede that the public interest would be better served by addressing the legitimate grievances of the nurses, firefighters, teachers and rail workers who are now in dispute, rather than by curbing their democratic right to take industrial action?
Grant Shapps
How many times—I am going to check the Hansard record afterwards—do I need to explain that the ILO says itself that it is perfectly proper to have minimum safety levels in place? Many of our European neighbours already have that in place. Many other countries—Australia, Canada, parts of America, South Africa and elsewhere—actually ban strikes in blue-light services. We ban them ourselves for the police, but I am not even proposing going that far. All I am saying is, “Please tell us if you’re going to withdraw your labour, and let’s agree a minimum safety level.” I do not think there is anything unreasonable about that whatsoever, and I have to say that I am shocked that the Labour party does.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud member of the GMB and Unite the union.
The reality is that the Government have refused for months to discuss pay with nurses, they have failed to avert the transport strikes and they are now introducing these shoddy plans to distract from their own failure to negotiate. I know the Secretary of State said earlier that he does not knowingly erase the former Prime Minister from his tweets, but that is exactly what he did recently, so perhaps he should spend less time on Photoshop and more time on the day job—sitting down and negotiating.
Grant Shapps
That was a slightly stretched question, but I think the basis of it was quite straightforward. As I have mentioned, it makes perfect sense to have a situation where we can guarantee national minimum safety standards for our constituents, and I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman would say to his constituents tomorrow when they may or may not be able to call an ambulance, depending on the trust he is in, about the failure to support such standards. I do not think his constituents should suffer from a postcode lottery, and I am prepared to legislate to make sure that does not happen, even if he does not want it.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
In the five years I had the privilege of leading the third largest council in Scotland with a workforce of 20,000, we had our share of industrial disputes. Every single time the unions came to us well in advance, and they told us what parts of services they wanted to exempt from industrial action, because they cared as much for the welfare of vulnerable people as we did. Is it not the case that if the Government cared half as much about education as teachers do, if they cared half as much about the health service as nurses and ambulance drivers do, and if they cared half as much for a decent public transport service as train drivers do, this bullyboy legislation would not be needed? The enemies of the health service are not on the picket line; they are on the Government Front Bench.
Grant Shapps
SNP Members make it sound as if they did not have any industrial strife. I think it is fantastic if the unions and the management get together to resolve these things—that is exactly what we want to see happen—but the reality is that, where it does not happen, strikes evolve sometimes. This legislation is about making sure those strikes are less damaging, particularly when it comes to people’s health and the security of the nation. The hon. Member makes his point as if they do not have strikes in primary schools and as if secondary schools in Scotland, where this is devolved, are not going on strike on Wednesday. The reality is that sometimes strikes do break out and, when they do, we want to make sure the public are properly protected.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Just before Christmas, I went to the ambulance station in Warrington, which is in the North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust. I spoke to workers there who have withdrawn their labour—paramedics, ambulance workers. They have done that with a heavy heart and as a last resort. They have done that because they are fighting for a fair deal, because their mortgages have gone up and the food bills have gone up. By the way, while I was there, they were providing a minimum level of service—I saw the ambulances going out, and rightly so, to deal with critical care incidents—so the current arrangements actually facilitate that. This is very un-British: it is a fundamental attack on the democratic right to withdraw one’s labour. How many teachers are going to be sacked, how many ambulance workers are going to be sacked, how many social workers are going to be sacked and how many rail workers will be sacked for standing up for their right to strike and withdraw their labour?
Grant Shapps
The answer to the question is none. I have not seen a single police officer sacked or a member of the Army sacked, and they have no-strike deals. We are not proposing no-strike deals here; we are simply saying, I think very reasonably, that the level of emergency service provided by the fantastic workers—and I accept what the hon. Member said about people going on strike with a heavy heart—in his particular ambulance trust should be provided to all Members across the House, no matter where they are. In the case tomorrow, the union has failed to agree that with the management. I rather hope that he and Members on the Opposition Front Bench will join us in persuading people to provide that minimum safety level. If not, they will need to explain to their constituents why they are failing to vote to support the safety and security of their own constituents’ lives.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud member of Unite and the GMB trade unions.
During the pandemic, my constituents and I stood on our doorsteps and clapped our key workers—we clapped the nurses at the Royal Lancaster Infirmary and the Blackpool Victoria, and we clapped the postal workers working out of our delivery offices in Lancaster, Fleetwood and Garstang—and now this Government are putting more effort into putting those workers’ jobs at risk than into trying to resolve the strikes. It is clear that the Secretary of State is obsessed about the ongoing strikes. I can assure him that many of the workers who are losing days and days of pay are upset, too. Can I try to help him and suggest that he puts more effort into sitting down with trade unions and finding a resolution than into trying to stamp on workers’ rights?
Grant Shapps
As the hon. Lady will know, various different unions have been invited in, there have been discussions across the different sectors and we are doing everything we can to encourage a settlement. I do need to gently point out to Opposition Members that this is not a Government who have ignored the independent pay review bodies, come up with our own number and, say, halved the amount of money that was suggested should be paid. We have actually accepted in full the recommendations of those independent pay review bodies, so we are actually following the science and following the evidence. She is wrong to suggest, and to continue frightening people by saying, that their jobs could be at risk. Nobody’s job is at risk. I have already explained that we are hiring more, particularly nurses and doctors, and this legislation will simply say that, if we cannot get there voluntarily across the country—not just, for example, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), but everywhere—we will have legislative power to make sure we are able to require minimum safety levels for everybody, not just some.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Teaching staff at my daughter’s school are on strike today and staff at my son’s school are on strike tomorrow, and I fully support their right to do so. We all know the Scottish Government’s budget is constrained, having been short-changed and underfunded in the face of soaring inflation. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor to ensure a fair funding settlement for the Scottish Government so that Scottish public sector workers can get the pay rise they deserve to deal with the Tory cost of living crisis?
Grant Shapps
All of us want our kids to be able to get to school, and the example in Scotland demonstrates that strikes occur regardless of who is in power at a particular moment, but the hon. Member and those on the Opposition Front Bench are wrong to suggest this is a UK problem that does not affect other parts of the world, because exactly the opposite is the case. We are in this situation and have this level of inflation because of the war in Ukraine, because Putin illegally invaded his neighbours’ country, because it pushed up energy prices, and because that pushed up inflation. It makes all of us poorer when that happens. If Members think the solution is simply not to worry while people’s livelihoods and safety are put at risk, that will be up to them to decide when they vote. This party will be voting to ensure people’s security and safety no matter which strikes come next.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Minister’s proposals criminalise workers for taking action in legitimate disputes, threatening to turn the clock back on workers’ rights by 200 years. The Tolpuddle martyrs were criminalised for withdrawing their labour and deported to Australia, as were the seven men of Jarrow for protesting about their working conditions. These proposals would see NHS, education and other key workers sacked for the same crime. Workers need a pay rise, not a P45. When will Ministers put our country first and invest in, not attack, key workers?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady is wrong on several fronts. First, it cannot be criminal if in fact that is a law that this House has passed. Secondly, it is no more criminal than breaching an employment contract; that is the level of, as she describes it, criminality. Is this going to be the line—is this how they are going to explain things to their constituents on the doorsteps over the next few days or weeks when ambulances are not necessarily going to turn up in one area and may in another? If their only answer is, “We didn’t think we should put in place the same measures that exist in countries such as France, Spain and Italy,” may I suggest that, rather than raving on about criminalisation, which is utter nonsense—nobody is criminalising anything— she simply agrees that minimum safety levels are a proportionate, sensible and modern way to go about things and she should support that?
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
As the TUC says, public sector workers have experienced the longest pay squeeze in 200 years, with workers losing out on £20,000-worth of wages due to pay not keeping up with prices since 2008. Now, when we are experiencing historically high inflation, the Government want to both reduce real-terms pay and legislate to enforce it. Is it not the case that the Government are proposing yet another authoritarian, draconian act to enforce their attack on our living standards?
Grant Shapps
The questions from Labour Members have remained remarkably consistent throughout, and I am not sure whether they have been handed out by their Front Bench or their union paymasters. But the fundamental facts are that the independent pay review bodies decide on the level of pay and the Government have accepted that in full. If these questions are being handed out by Labour Front Benchers, they will need to explain what they plan to do with the independent pay review bodies. Are they now going to routinely ignore their advice, which is not something we have done? Are they going to tell their constituents that they will not have a minimum safe level of service if they have a heart attack or a stroke, or are they going to pay the 19%, in which case they need to explain to their constituents why their tax is going up, why inflation is going up further and why interest rates are going up as well.
Points of Order
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As someone who spent 33 years on the frontline in the NHS, I am disappointed that I have not been able to contribute to this debate and highlight that actually the biggest challenge to all four NHSs and patient safety is protection of the workforce. That is because—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. This is an endeavour to extend the question time. I may be green as a Deputy Speaker but I am long in the tooth in the Chair. The Speaker has made it absolutely plain that hon. Members, on either side of the House, must be here at the start of the question session in order to participate.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The hon. Lady is fully aware that she was not here; she will take her seat please.
Dr Whitford
That was due to the change to the sitting for the previous business. Should we not have a bell warning for when sittings change?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. That is a matter that the hon. Lady may wish to raise with Mr Speaker, but it is not a question for me now.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker
If it is the same question, it will be the same answer.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
On a serious issue, when the Government are going on about market forces, except when it comes to workers, we need some notice when things are changed in this place, because at the moment the start of things is pretty chaotic. We should have a bell ringing to give at least a five-minute warning so Members know when things are changing.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has been in this House for a very long time indeed—perhaps not quite as long as I have, but he has been here for a very long time—and he knows perfectly well that it is an hon. Member’s duty and responsibility to be here on time when the session starts. He was not here.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Act:
Finance Act 2023.
Bill Presented
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Grant Shapps, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Steve Barclay, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Suella Braverman, Oliver Dowden, Secretary Gillian Keegan and Secretary Mark Harper, presented a Bill to make provision about minimum service levels in connection with the taking by trade unions of strike action relating to certain services.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 222) with explanatory notes (Bill 222-EN).
Elected Representatives (Codes Of Conduct)
Tuesday 10th January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Elected Representatives (Codes of Conduct) Bill 2022-23 View all Elected Representatives (Codes of Conduct) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a statutory code of conduct for Ministers of the Crown; for a statutory code of conduct for Members of the House of Commons and members of the House of Lords; for a statutory code of conduct for councillors in England; and for connected purposes.
Many, if not most of us, on all sides of this House became Members of Parliament because we wanted to help improve the lives of our constituents and all citizens across our great country and its nation states. As MPs, we have duties set out in our now updated codes of conduct, which also apply to Ministers and the Prime Minister. In addition to upholding the law and the general law about discrimination, these duties include:
“to act in the interests of the nation as a whole”,
with a “special duty” to our constituents; recognising the trust that has been placed on us as elected representatives; and to
“always behave with probity and integrity,”
including in our use of public resources. Within these duties we have the “General Principles of Conduct”, often referred to as the Nolan principles, which apply to all aspects of our parliamentary and public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. But, as we know, too often over the last few years we have seen a small minority of Members pay scant regard to these duties and principles, even wilfully ignoring them.
The scandals of the last few years are not the issue of just one Administration. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who is responsible for regulating the Members’ code, was initially set up in 1995 to investigate the cash-for-questions affair, and there have been other scandals since then. These have usually resulted in changes to the Members and ministerial codes, as well as the business appointment rules which regulate the so-called “revolving door” employment between the public and private sector of former Ministers and senior officials.
The impact of these abuses cannot be underestimated. It may be a tiny minority who bend or break the rules, but we all become tarred by the same brush, corrupted by association. According to polling by Compassion in Politics, four in five people have no respect for politicians and 40% of parents would be concerned if their child expressed a desire to become a politician. Office for National Statistics data shows that only one in three people trust the Government and two in three think politicians are only out for themselves. Let us pause for a moment to consider what that tells us about the health of our democracy and the prospects for democratic engagement in Britain today and in the future.
Many hon. Members will have experienced at first hand the extreme effects of the steady disintegration in our social fabric. Too many voters have become apathetic; some have become actively hostile. Hate, intolerance and violence are all products of the escalating distrust and increasing disdain with which the public view the political class. Part of how we restore confidence in politics and politicians is by actively demonstrating that all elected representatives will abide by the rules and principles set out in our codes of conduct.
I want to acknowledge the role and work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and their office in regulating the Members’ code. I also recognise the work of right hon., hon. and noble colleagues on the Committee on Standards, the Committee on Privileges, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I also pay tribute to their lay members. Those Committees’ recent reports and recommendations for changes to strengthen the various codes of conduct will, I believe, help in that regard. However, there is a need for much more significant reform in the accountability systems that regulate Parliament’s conduct. The current systems are spider’s webs, built up over the past 400 years or so, which interact and overlap. Inevitably, there are still issues.
My Bill cannot deal with everything that is needed for a whole-system reform, but it could tackle the most serious and urgent issues, the first and most egregious of which is the Prime Minister’s remaining the arbiter of the ministerial code. The terms of reference for the new so-called independent adviser to the Prime Minister on Ministers’ interests, appointed on 22 December last year, have not changed since the previous adviser under the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). They still fail to give independence and autonomy to initiate new investigations into breaches of the ministerial code or to publish the findings of any investigations. That has to change.
My Bill proposes that, as in Northern Ireland, the ministerial code, including the seven Nolan principles, are put in statute, and that an independent commissioner on ministerial standards is established as a statutory office. His or her role would be: to advise the Prime Minister on all aspects of the ministerial code; to undertake investigations, both independently and referred, into potential breaches of the code; to appoint a panel of parliamentarians and lay members to take part in such investigations; to publish the findings of such investigations; and to make recommendations regarding sanctions for any breaches. He or she would also have the power to make a statement on ethical matters of general public interest affecting Ministers.
The second issue is how Members of Parliament are held to account outside of election time. The October 2022 code of conduct procedure set out what the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards can and cannot do to hold MPs to account on potential breaches of the code. It defines other regulatory systems that hold Members to account—for example, expenses are for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and conduct in the Chamber is obviously the domain of Mr Speaker—but paragraph 17 expressly prohibits the Commissioner from investigating allegations solely about breaches of the seven principles of public life. Although it has been argued that that is because principles are not judiciable, for me, there is a gap. My Bill proposes that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should also become a statutory office and that, under their purview, in addition to investigating Members for potential breaches of code of conduct rules, Members could be investigated for serious and serial breaches of the seven principles of public life.
Thirdly, I turn to the important role that our local councillors play in our communities and in our democracy as a whole. Again, the vast majority of councillors work tirelessly at trying to make a difference in their communities, but unfortunately a minority use their positions for their own purposes and threaten our democracy as a result. Although there is a requirement for councillors to have a councillor code of conduct under the Localism Act 2011, such codes vary greatly between different local authorities. My Bill proposes a standardised statutory councillor code of conduct, which includes the Nolan principles and is accompanied by a statutory accountability system.
Finally, we need to review how our parliamentary system, and the elective representatives within it, are regulated in a way that reflects the modern, inclusive, empowering democracy that we want to become in the 21st century and beyond. Polling by Compassion in Politics found that 76% of people believe that they should have the right to influence our codes of conduct. As such, my Bill proposes that an independent ethics commission of constitutional legal experts is established by Parliament to advise on system reforms. The ethics commission would also work with a citizen’s assembly to come up with final recommendations to Parliament.
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for compassionate politics, I have argued for the need to reform the culture of our politics. The Prime Minister and other Ministers and Members have talked about the need for compassion in politics. Good policies can come only from good politics. That must start with the conduct of those in high office. As such, I hope that the Government will support my Bill.
Finally, I extend my thanks to Matt Hawkins from Compassion in Politics, George Hulme in my office and Jolyon Maugham of the Good Law Project. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Debbie Abrahams, Kim Leadbeater, Caroline Lucas, Layla Moran and Dr Dan Poulter present the Bill.
Debbie Abrahams accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February, and to be printed (Bill 223).
Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction) Bill
Tuesday 10th January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Act 2023 View all Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 10 January 2023 - (10 Jan 2023)
16:20 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 184 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 14 / Noes: 310 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 308 / Noes: 170 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) This section makes modifications of Part 4 of the Finance Act 2003 in relation to any land transaction the effective date of which falls in the period (“the temporary relief period”)—
(a) beginning with 23 September 2022, and
(b) ending with 31 March 2025.”
This amendment provides that the relief from Stamp Duty Land Tax provided for by the Bill is only to apply until 31 March 2025.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (a) to amendment 1, after “transaction” insert
“(except in relation to additional dwellings)”.
This amendment is intended to remove the relief from stamp duty land tax for second homes (see Amendment 15 to leave out subsection (3)).
Amendment (b) to amendment 1, leave out “31 March 2025” and insert “31 March 2028”.
This amendment is intended to extend the temporary relief from Stamp Duty Land Tax so that it expires at or around the time as the frozen thresholds for Income Tax, Inheritance Tax and National Insurance are due to expire.
Government amendments 2 and 3.
Amendment 15, page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment is intended to remove the relief from stamp duty land tax for second homes (see Amendment (a) to Gov 1).
Government amendments 4 to 12.
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 13.
Clause 2 stand part.
New clause 1—Comparison of temporary and permanent relief—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, publish an assessment of the change in Government policy on stamp duty land from—
(a) the Plan for Growth published on 23 September 2022, to
(b) the Autumn Statement published on 17 November 2022.
(2) This review must include—
(a) an assessment of the costs of implementing the change in policy referred to in subsection (1) for the Government, the property industry, and homebuyers;
(b) an assessment of any wider costs and impacts of the change in policy referred to in subsection (1) on the housing market; and
(c) what measures the Government is planning to ease the impact on tax revenues, home purchases and the housing market of the reduction in stamp duty land tax coming to an abrupt end on 31 March 2025.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish a review of the change in Government policy to make the relief in this Bill temporary instead of permanent.
New clause 2—Review: first-home buyers—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must conduct a twice-yearly review of the impact of this Act on the number of people buying their first home and must publish a report of this review at six-month intervals.”
This new clause is to ensure that a regular report is made on the impact of the proposed Act on the number of people buying their first home.
New clause 3—Review: second homes in National Parks and Areas of Natural Beauty—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish an annual report on the impact of this Act on the number of second homes in National Parks and Areas of Natural Beauty.”
This new clause would require that an annual report is published on the impact of the Bill on the number of second or subsequent homes in National Parks and Areas of Natural Beauty.
New clause 4—Review: house prices in rural areas—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish an annual review of the impact of this Act on house prices in rural areas.”
This new clause would require that an annual review is published on the impact of the Bill on house prices in rural areas.
New clause 6—Review: availability of affordable housing and the private rented sector—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must conduct an assessment into, and publish a report on, the impact of this Act on the housing market, including (1) the impact on the availability of affordable housing and (2) the private rented sector.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to conduct an assessment into the impact of the Bill on the housing market, including the availability of affordable housing and the private rented sector.
New clause 7—Report on effect of temporary relief—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, three months before expiry of the temporary relief period, publish an assessment of the impacts of the temporary relief provided by this Act.
(2) This assessment must include an assessment of the impacts on—
(a) the volume and value of housing transactions on the housing market,
(b) any wider costs for the Government, property industry, housing market and/or homebuyers, and
(c) tax revenues.
(3) The assessment must make a recommendation as to whether the temporary relief period should expire or whether the House of Commons should consult on extending it or making it permanent.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impacts of the temporary tax relief and a recommendation before the temporary relief period comes to an end.
Government amendment 14.
Victoria Atkins
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
At the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out set out how the Government are dealing with the global economic challenges that we face. The consequences of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the covid-19 pandemic mean that we must be fiscally responsible while supporting the economy and encouraging our businesses to grow and our constituents to thrive. We need a balanced approach to support our objectives, which includes helping people get on to and move up the housing ladder—and indeed to downsize.
Victoria Atkins
It is very soon, but because it is my right hon. Friend, I will certainly give way.
Sir Desmond Swayne
My hon. Friend is most generous and kind. Those of us who voted with enthusiasm for the Bill’s Second Reading on the grounds that there was to be a permanent change for the benefit of those people wanting to get on to the housing ladder are somewhat discomfited by the fact that Government amendment 1 will make it merely a temporary measure to assist those who want to do so. We want them to be permanently assisted. Can she reassure me?
Victoria Atkins
I very much understand why my right hon. Friend raises that point. I know he took a great interest in the autumn statement and listened carefully to the submissions and oration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). We had to take some difficult decisions in the course of the autumn statement to ensure that our approach to the economy is fiscally responsible. This is one way in which we hope to stimulate the housing market in the next two years in the difficult economic circumstances we find, but thereafter we are confident that the economy will improve and we will be able to return to the status quo as it was before 23 September. However, the broader picture about reducing the taxation burden on our constituents still stands. Indeed, I hope my right hon. Friend listened with great interest to the Prime Minister’s speech last week in which he made it clear that that is our ultimate goal.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
On 17 October, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer told this House that this particular element of the mini-Budget relating to stamp duty land tax would be retained. It was on that basis that the Bill was introduced in the House. It was only a month later that we had the autumn statement when the Chancellor of the Exchequer went back on what had been said earlier.
Victoria Atkins
Again, my hon. Friend puts his finger on the point as to the very, very fast-moving economic conditions we have faced in the last few months. He will recall the autumn statement and the great detail the Chancellor went into in terms of ensuring that our approach is fiscally responsible. We had to acknowledge and react to the conditions as we found them then. We are confident that the sunset clause in the Bill will enable us to support our constituents. Indeed, it is happening at this very moment in time, because, of course, we brought in the measures as soon as possible immediately after the original announcement. They are helping, for example, first-time buyers get on to the housing ladder.
Victoria Atkins
I will take one more intervention, and then make a little progress.
Barry Gardiner
I am very grateful to the Minister. I listened carefully to what she was saying about global economic circumstances, in particular Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the effect that that has had on people in this country through their energy bills. She will know that the Government set a target for a 78% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. To achieve that, will she consider looking at whether stamp duty might be raised up or put down in accordance with the energy performance certificate ratings of properties, perhaps providing a way for households to benefit financially but ensure that they meet the Government’s target?
Victoria Atkins
That is an interesting suggestion. At first blush, my mind goes immediately to the complexity of such a scheme, particularly given our proudly antique housing stock—certainly in my constituency, with beautiful farmhouses and market town high streets that are many, many hundreds of years old. I therefore think it unlikely—I will be honest with the hon. Gentleman—but he is always welcome to write to me. I will make this point: the Government’s very real progress over the last decade, on drastically cutting our carbon emissions, with the help of industry, homeowners and members of the public, should be acknowledged. Dare I say it, if it is not unparalleled across the world, we are certainly in the top few. What is more, we have tried, through measures such as VAT zero rating on energy-saving materials, to encourage homeowners and others to plug gaps and make their homes more energy efficient. So, I do not think stamp duty is the way to help, but certainly the Government have already put in place measures to try to help us meet our very, very ambitious climate targets.
The last few years have, frankly, been tough on us all and we want to help people take that next step in their lives to buy a new home. The Bill cuts stamp duty land tax for first-time buyers and other homeowners to reduce the upfront cost of moving home. It is because we want to help people as quickly as possible that the rates are already in force, helping our constituents.
The provisions in the Bill apply only to purchases of residential property in England and Northern Ireland, as land transaction taxes have been devolved to Scotland and Wales.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Sir Roger, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
The Government’s proposal in the Bill will do some marginal good, reducing the cost of buying for some people. The danger is that it meets the needs of a very small number of people. The overwhelming majority of people living in my constituency who cannot afford a home are not in the waiting room, shall we say, to be able to access a new home on the basis of this change. If we think, for example, that £250,000 constitutes the price of an affordable home, we are not in touch with reality—certainly not in the Lake district and the rest of Cumbria. I do not propose to vote against the Government’s proposal, because I can see how it could do some good at the margins, but if we were really bothered about the fact that most people cannot afford to be a first-time buyer with a home of their own, we would be tackling the lack of development of new council homes, social rented homes across the board and shared ownership, and we would be looking at making better use of the current stock.
The reality is that whatever benefit the stamp duty cut might have brought to families has already been quashed and exceeded by the additional cost they will have to bear through mortgage interest rate increases resulting from the Government’s failures. I am told that in the financial markets, those who are in the know refer to the increased mortgage costs, which dwarf any benefit that the stamp duty may bring to new homeowners, as the moron premium—I promise you that those are not my words, Sir Roger. That is the consequence of a very foolish decision that this Government made just a few months ago.
That is not to say that there is no benefit in what the Government are choosing to do. However, my new clause 3, which—with your permission, Sir Roger—I shall move today, would give the Government the opportunity to recognise that there are unintended consequences. We know that because they have already happened. We all remember that in July 2020, when the current Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was a stamp duty holiday for purchasers of properties of a value of up to £500,000. The impact on the Lake district was instant and catastrophic: 80% of all new house sales in our community were in the second home market. Some 84% of properties in Elterwater, and more than 50% of properties in Coniston, are not lived in. Communities that were already on the margins might have lost enough full-time occupants that they cannot sustain a local school, post office or bus route or have any community life whatever.
There have also been consequences for our workforce. We are all rightly focused on the impact of the massive pressures on our health and social care services; in the lakes, they are under even more pressure because the homes that care workers and health workers once lived in are no longer available to them. That possibility has been wiped out, partly because of a well-intended but poorly informed decision that the current Prime Minister made as Chancellor in July 2020. We have learned that lesson, so there is no excuse for the Government to act without thinking about the unintended consequences and making some attempt to mitigate them.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I agree fully about areas of high housing pressure where people in local communities cannot buy their own home. May I commend to the hon. Gentleman what we have done in Wales? The Welsh Government have brought in a land transaction tax to replace stamp duty, which is a devolved matter, as the Minister said. Under that system, anybody who buys a second or third home pays a premium on that tax, which comes out of the first property as a disincentive to buying more than one home. Furthermore, in areas of high housing pressure, local councils can choose to treble council tax; indeed, my county council, Carmarthenshire, has announced that it will double council tax on second homes.
Tim Farron
Yes. Most of our good ideas were somebody else’s first, so there is no harm whatever in looking at what devolved Administrations such as the Welsh Senedd Government have done. There are positives there from which we could learn, but it is also good to learn from our own mistakes—and the Government made a well-intentioned mistake two and a half years ago, with a very damaging impact on the lakes, on many other rural parts of England and across the United Kingdom.
Let me ram home what that means. It robs us of the life of our communities and the services on which we rely, but it also robs us of a workforce. That means fewer people working not only in social care or health, but in our hospitality and tourism industry. The lakes are the second biggest visitor destination in the country, with 20 million visitors a year, but with a very small population. The workforce that services all the folks here and the many others who holiday in the lakes have nowhere to live any more. We are in the terrible situation of facing a recession nationally but, bizarrely, having more tourist demand in the lakes than we can meet. We cannot meet that demand because we do not have the workforce, and one reason is that the Government have been negligent in providing and ensuring enough affordable homes for people in our communities.
I support the Opposition amendments that would ensure that the stamp duty cut is not available for the purposes of buying a second home; I think that is wise. My new clause 3 would place a responsibility on the Secretary of State to look every year at the policy’s impact on the number of second homes bought, not just in communities like mine but across the country.
The Government know what is happening. The evidence is before their eyes: their temporary stamp duty cut in 2020, a well-intentioned attempt to boost the economy at the beginning of the pandemic, had the immediately negative consequence of hollowing out communities in my area in Cumbria and in Northumberland, the west country and other parts of the UK. I am not theorising; it has already happened. My communities were badly hit by a well-intentioned but foolish Government policy. Why would the Government not accept new clause 3, which would allow them to do something about a policy that is positive on the whole, but that they know has a negative consequence on communities such as mine?
We will not vote against the Bill. We recognise that it does some good, although we think it is a bad use of public money. We could do so much more with that money by investing it in affordable homes for local families, ensuring more council homes and making sure that we tackle inequalities in rural communities in particular. We reckon that there is a marginal benefit from the Government’s policy, but there is a disbenefit for communities such as mine. Will the Minister take new clause 3 on board and agree simply to review the situation year on year, to prevent communities such as mine in the lakes, the dales and the rest of Cumbria from being hollowed out? Otherwise, they will be turned into ghost towns, their workforces will be eradicated and no young people will be able to set up a home there—all because of a decision with an unintended consequence of which the Government cannot now claim to be unaware.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. The shadow Minister may be slightly perplexed as to why I did not call her first, but the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) had indicated to me that he wished to press new clause 3 to a Division, so I thought it might be helpful for her to hear his arguments before being called to speak.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon. I was not perplexed at all.
When we debated the Bill on Second Reading in October, the stamp duty cut that it seeks to introduce was one of the last few measures to have survived from the Tories’ reckless mini-Budget in September. As we said at the time, we oppose the stamp duty cut because it would not be the right way to spend public money and would not be responsible. On the back of 13 years of economic stagnation, our economy has just suffered long-term damage from the Tories’ recklessness at the end of last year. We made it clear that spending £1.7 billion a year on the proposed stamp duty cut simply could not be justified.
In October, as hon. Members may remember, there was a last-minute flip-flop in parliamentary business. Four days before we were due to debate all stages of the Bill, the Leader of the House announced that we would debate only its Second Reading. No reason was given for that last-minute change to parliamentary business, so we speculated that the decision might have been intended to give the new Prime Minister and his Chancellor the chance to change their mind about these stamp duty changes. That is indeed what has happened.
Rather than reversing the stamp duty cut altogether, however, the Government’s amendments seek only to impose a time limit on it. Ministers could have used the breathing space since last October to do the right thing and scrap the stamp duty cut, but instead the Chancellor proposes only a partial U-turn. Government amendment 1 will amend clause 1, imposing a sunset date of 31 March 2025. The Government’s other amendments, which are consequential on that change, include an amendment to the name of the Bill.
The Opposition remain opposed to the stamp duty cut. Even if Government amendments 1 to 14 are agreed to, the Bill will still represent a failure by the Conservatives to spend money wisely.
We are not talking about a small amount of money: the Government’s own figures make the Bill’s price tag clear. Even if the stamp duty cut is time-limited, it will still cost taxpayers £3.2 billion. We are serious about spending public money wisely, and the Government should be as well. For that reason we will vote against the Bill on Third Reading even if it has been amended, but before we reach that stage we still want to use this Committee stage to interrogate the Government on some of the detail, and to urge them at least to amend its provisions if they are not willing to drop it entirely.
Sir Christopher Chope
The hon. Lady seems to be obsessed with the issue of second homes. What about the point she made earlier about the number of young people becoming home owners, which has declined so dramatically since 1987? In 1989, 51% of 25 to 34-year-olds owned a home; now about half that number do so. What are the Opposition going to do about it?
Abena Oppong-Asare
In fact, the statistics quoted by the hon. Member show that the Bill will not help people. It will not help first-time buyers, and it is not just Labour Members who are saying that: the Resolution Foundation has provided statistical evidence that it will not help them. We want to help first-time buyers as well, but this is not the right solution. It will be mainly second and additional homes that benefit. Our two amendments would amend Government amendment 1 to remove the relief for buyers of additional dwellings, and would remove clause 1 (3), which raises the threshold for them. They would prevent the Bill from giving relief from stamp duty to buyers of second homes. I hope the hon. Member will support our proposals, particularly our amendment to enable first-time buyers to get on to the ladder as he wishes them to do.
As I have made clear, we do not believe that this stamp duty cut is the right or responsible way in which to spend £3.2 billion of public money, but if the Government are not willing to cancel the cut altogether, I urge Conservative Members at the very least to support our amendment to prevent second home buyers from receiving a £2,500 tax cut.
New clause 1, which Labour has also tabled, requires the Chancellor to be up front and transparent about the costs of the partial U-turn on the stamp duty cut, and to set out the measures that the Government will take to mitigate the impact of the abrupt end of the stamp duty relief at the end of March 2025. We know from the Government’s policy paper on this tax change that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will have to incur costs in the region of £300,000 to change IT systems, and about £2.4 million in extra staff costs. That is ridiculous. Through new clause 1, we aim to push Ministers further by asking them to set out specifically the costs of implementing their U-turn
“for the Government, the property industry, and homebuyers”,
as well as
“any wider costs and impacts of the change…on the housing market”.
We are also asking them to set out the measures they are
“planning to ease the impact on tax revenues, home purchases and the housing market of the reduction in stamp duty…coming to an abrupt end on 31 March 2025.”
We know from Government amendment 12 that Ministers are introducing measures to ensure that transitions that straddle the end of the temporary relief benefit from the reduction, but the question of the impact of ending the stamp duty relief goes much further than that. In 2016, the Office for Budget Responsibility published a paper on property tax changes and forestalling when transactions are brought forward to benefit from lower tax rates. The OBR found that in each historic case that was analysed, the preannouncement of an upcoming tax increase led to a sizeable forestalling. Forestalling is therefore expected to be an important issue in relation to the end of the temporary stamp duty cut, and we urge the Government to set out the measures they are planning ahead of that. If they are not willing to accept our new clause 1, I urge the Minister to set out the detail that we request, either at the end of the debate or subsequently in writing.
When our country is suffering the consequences of 13 years of low growth and of the Conservatives’ economic chaos at the end of last year, now is not the time to be spending £3.2 billion on this tax cut, particularly when hundreds of millions of pounds will go to the buyers of second homes. We urge Members in all parts of the Committee to support our amendments to remove the tax cut for second-home buyers, and to join us in opposing the Bill on Third Reading.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I think that the Government have made a number of admissions today about the importance of property taxes, and stamp duty land tax in particular. During the covid period we used a reduction to try to stimulate the market and keep it afloat, for good reasons. I heard what was said by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). There are often flipsides, downsides and unintended consequences from tax changes, but the implicit admission from the Minister was that lower stamp duty encourages market transactions. In my mind that has to be a good thing, because property sales refresh housing stock. I imagine that the first thing any of us who are lucky enough to own a property will do when we purchase it is to do stuff. We might improve the bathrooms—or whatever we fancy, if pockets are deep enough—but those transactions that we make with local builders and others add to the local market. They add jobs, and there are VAT revenues and profits for B&Q and elsewhere. This all comes with it.
A trap that the Liberal Democrats and the Opposition Front Bench fall into is that they do not see tax as a game of chess. Too often we—the Treasury included—see tax as a one-step move: if we do this, it will create just that. It is far more complicated than that, because there are other outcomes in terms of economic activity that are not always recognised. But the strict admission by the Government Front Bench today is that lower stamp duty makes the wheels turn, and that has to be to the good.
We are currently seeing a modest reduction in house prices, so this type of measure to reduce stamp duty is very much to be welcomed, but I have a rather more long-standing objection to SDLT and to this form of capital tax generally, but most particularly to SDLT, because it stops labour mobility. If one of my constituents, someone with a family, were offered a job elsewhere in the country, the most natural thing would be to sell their property and move to that new area. But when they are faced with a stiff bill for SDLT, they have to be doubly or triply sure that this is the right move, because it is likely to cost tens of thousands of pounds. It worries me that people are not taking up roles elsewhere because they need to be absolutely sure. What probably happens is that they take a rental property elsewhere to get a feel for the area and find out whether the job is right. That is not helpful for their family life in the longer term.
The Government Front-Bench team made another admission this afternoon. Not surprisingly, the Minister announced with great fanfare the very good news that in vast areas of the country, the majority of transactions will fall outside of stamp duty. That is particularly true for those buying a property for the first time. We often talk about tax, and people’s idea of fairness will probably be different depending on where they sit in this House, but can it really be fair that a constituent in South Thanet who is trying to purchase a modest property will face this SDLT charge just because they are in Kent in the south-east, whereas someone buying the self-same kind of property in another part of the country will not pay that tax at all? I am not entirely sure of the fairness of that. I would rather that everyone paid a similar amount in a property transaction, possibly based on the size of the property.
Another area that I have discussed with many colleagues over the years, including at a few roundtables, is retirement mobility. Too often, people who have lost their partner, a husband or wife, are stuck in their old property. We are very much aware of the cost of heating that type of property. They do not have the ability to do more work to increase their annual income, and they are stuck in a property that is too big for them, with all those memories of old. They realise that they really ought to move somewhere smaller that is more energy efficient and closer to services. However, if they live in an area of the country that is expensive, they might find an ideal property that is smaller and has all those good things, but there will be a very big SDLT charge.
I know the thoughts of older people, because I have had these discussions with my father and friends, and when they look at the potential bill just for doing the right thing through retirement mobility, they often say, “Do you know what, I’m not prepared to pay it. I’m just not going to pay £10,000 or £20,000 or whatever the price may be to do the right thing.” They do not want to pay that much to move somewhere more appropriate for older living.
I implore the Minister to receive a document from me and to have a conversation about the concept of a downsizing relief for older people. It could be fixed to retirement age, when people’s ability to earn has gone because they have retired. Perhaps they could get some credit, such as free stamp duty, for doing the right thing in moving to a smaller home, which is sensible for them, the family and everyone else. In so doing, they would be releasing those bigger homes for the families who need them.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I rise to speak to new clauses 4 and 6, which I tabled, and to support new clauses 2 and 3, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).
The housing crisis has been discussed at length today and at many other times in this place, and Members are well aware of the pressure that second and luxury home ownership is placing on communities where existing residents are struggling to buy their first home. In rural parts of Britain, including North Shropshire, our villages are at risk of turning into retirement villages and our tourist hotspots are almost becoming ghost towns at certain times of the year. That is having a hugely negative impact on rural skills and the rural economy, as both pupils and people of working age are in increasingly short supply.
The economic climate has changed, but house prices in rural Britain have risen fast in recent years. Figures from Hamptons, the estate agent, reveal that rural house prices rose by 14.2% in 2021, compared with just 6.8% in urban areas. The property website Property Road estimates that there are 132,000 fewer young homeowners in rural England than in 2010. I do not want to bore the Committee with facts and figures, but eight in 10 respondents to a Country Land and Business Association survey said that the lack of affordable housing had priced out first-time buyers in rural areas.
Although efforts to help first-time buyers in all areas of the country are welcome, the experience of the previous temporary stamp duty reduction in 2020 suggests that there is a risk of distorting the market and achieving the opposite. During that period, rural areas saw soaring house prices, with those trying to sell in Shropshire reporting intense competition and competitive bidding, unseen, for their home. That is all very well for those who were trying to sell, but it was bad news for anyone trying to buy a home at the same time and disastrous for anyone trying to get a foothold on the housing ladder.
Meanwhile, genuinely affordable housing—housing costing less than £250,000—remains in desperately short supply. Market prices have risen so much in recent years that it is putting intense pressure on social housing and the private rented sector, with social housing waiting lists spiralling and thousands of families being forced into temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We all know this is far from ideal for anyone who needs a place to call home, but it is totally unsuitable for families whose children need the security of a stable school and home environment. People who came here under the Ukrainian and Afghan refugee schemes, and whose family sponsorship has come to an end, are now the responsibility of their local authority, and they are also being forced to spend time in unsuitable temporary accommodation.
The potential for an accidental house price distortion makes it much harder for local authorities and housing associations to replace stock sold under the right to buy, because they are unable to retain 100% of the proceeds. I tabled new clause 6 to require the Treasury to consider the impact of these measures on the housing market, and specifically on the availability of private rented and affordable housing, because people who are priced out of those sectors are adding to the ever-increasing waiting lists for social housing.
New clause 4 would require specific consideration of the housing market in rural areas in response to the recent trend of house price growth in these areas outpacing the house price growth in urban areas, which is exacerbating the issues we have seen across the country. We simply cannot ignore the housing crisis any longer. All policy should consider the possibility of unintended consequences and mitigate that risk. These reports would better inform policy, and I urge the Minister to consider their inclusion so that we do not cause an unintended problem.
I briefly turn to second homes, although I cannot improve on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. Suffice it to say that second home ownership is hollowing out villages in some parts of the country on weekdays and during the winter, and it is driving up house prices for everyone, meaning that many people cannot afford a first home. In a country with a housing shortage, the Government should strongly discourage empty second homes. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) made an excellent point on that issue.
I support new clauses 2 and 3, which would require the Chancellor to consider the impact of the Bill on the number of first and second home buyers, such that it can be amended if necessary, and specifically to consider the worst-affected areas, which are our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
I broadly support any measure that encourages home ownership, but I fear that this temporary cut in duty, at a time when the Treasury can ill afford it, will be counterproductive for first-time buyers, particularly in rural Britain. New clauses 4 and 6 would allow the impacts to be fully understood, to confirm whether I am right and to make sure the policy is well informed.
Sir Christopher Chope
Happy new year, Sir Roger.
In speaking to my amendment (b) to amendment 1 and my new clause 7, I share with the Committee my dismay at the way in which the Government, with their amendments, are transforming this Bill, which originally introduced a permanent tax reduction. The Bill will now increase tax permanently by about £1 billion a year from April 2025.
On 17 October, the new Chancellor confirmed that the mini-Budget’s provisions on stamp duty land tax were safe, yet in his autumn statement, one month later, he announced:
“I will sunset the measure”.—[Official Report, 17 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 846.]
That is an extraordinary use of language, because it does not fit the definition of a sunset clause set out on the UK Parliament website:
“A provision in a Bill that gives it an expiry date once it is passed into law. Sunset clauses are included in legislation when it is felt that Parliament should have the chance to decide on its merits again after a fixed period.”
I assumed, wrongly, that by introducing a sunset clause, the Government would give this House an opportunity to reconsider the situation before the advent of that sunset period.
That is why I tabled new clause 7, which states:
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, three months before expiry of the temporary relief period, publish an assessment of the impacts of the temporary relief provided by this Act.”
That would meet the concerns raised by the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). New clause 7 continues:
“(2) This assessment must include an assessment of the impacts on—
(a) the volume and value of housing transactions on the housing market,
(b) any wider costs for the Government, property industry, housing market and/or homebuyers, and
(c) tax revenues.
(3) The assessment must make a recommendation as to whether the temporary relief period should expire or whether the House of Commons should consult on extending it or making it permanent.”New clause 7 would be a proper sunset provision that enables this House to return to the issue before the change is made permanent, but the Government amendments do not embrace that at all.
How does this Bill fit with what the Prime Minister said on 4 January? In quite a long speech, his only reference to taxation was:
“as soon as we can, the Government will reduce the burden of taxation on working people.”
Today, six days after that speech, the Government are asking us to increase the burden of tax on working people with effect from April 2025.
We have also heard in the interim that the Government will forgo the receipt of about £1 billion from the sale of Channel 4, yet as recently as 18 July 2022, when responding to the consultation on that issue, the Government announced that now is the right time to pursue a change in ownership of Channel 4. Why, one might ask, is now the right time both to increase taxes and to abandon asset sales?
Stamp duty land tax is targeted at homeowners and those who aspire to home ownership. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), I am opposed to stamp duty land tax because it is arbitrary, clunky and unfair in how it applies in different parts of our country.
For example, if someone lives in Christchurch and the average price of a house is £405,000, that does not mean that they are better off. It means they have to spend more money on the borrowing costs in order to buy an average house for themselves and their family. Someone living in the Minister’s constituency, where the average house price is only £200,000, would have lower borrowing costs and would not have to pay any stamp duty land tax.
Victoria Atkins
This is precisely why the Government are so committed to levelling up. Although I know how beautiful my hon. Friend’s constituency is, having had the pleasure of visiting it, in my beautiful corner of England, we do not, sadly, have the transport links that other constituencies have. It is precisely this drive for levelling up, which I know Conservative Members are united on, which may help with some of the issues he sets out so eloquently.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. It comes down to how we define, “levelling up”. The point I am trying to make is that, if somebody is buying an average house in Christchurch, or in her constituency of Louth and Horncastle, it should not make any difference in terms of taxation whether the house is going to cost £405,000 or £200,000. Why should the person buying a house in Christchurch who wants to become a teacher or an NHS employee in the area not only have the burden of having the higher house price—she has referred to some of those issues—but have to pay £10,000 in SDLT for the privilege of moving into the Christchurch constituency to purchase an average-priced house? I do not see any justice in that at all. In levelling up, we should be putting those two categories of person on the same level when it comes to their liability for paying transaction taxes.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet made the suggestion, which I have also made, that we should scrap SDLT. If we want to have a transaction tax, we should introduce one based on, for example, the size of a property, because that would be neutral; it would really be levelling up across the country. Obviously, it would be more popular with some people than with others, but it would certainly be very popular with my constituents and it would meet the criterion of levelling up.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It might be very popular in Christchurch, but it would be very unpopular in Wellingborough and it seems totally unfair to me.
Sir Christopher Chope
This is the challenge, because some people think that this would adversely affect them. When we were looking at whether we should change the domestic rating system, we always faced the problem of the people who were going to be worse off, who were always the losers and who were going to complain. I accept that, were this to be implemented in the way I am canvassing, it would create some losers who would be unpleasantly surprised. That leads me to my belief that SDLT and stamp duty should be abolished altogether. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That is an issue on which we, as real Conservatives who believe in a homeowning democracy, should be able to agree—and it seems from that response that we can agree on it—rather than dividing again in trying to find an alternative to an already unsatisfactory tax.
Let us remind ourselves that, in the 1980s, when we had the beginnings of the property-owning democracy revolution, with more than 50% of people in the 25 to 34 age group being homeowners, we had a stamp duty regime where the maximum rate to purchase any house was 1%. Since this process started under the Blair Government and continued with the coalition—the Treasury is always seeing this as a cow to be milked for taxpayers’ benefit—the proportion of people able to afford to buy their homes has declined significantly. So the challenge I make to the Government, and I hope the Minister can respond to this, is: if we put stamp duty back to 1% as a maximum, what would that do to increase the number of transactions in the housing market, which, as others have said, is ostensibly the Government’s agenda?
On 23 September, HMRC’s policy paper “Stamp Duty Land Tax Reduction” set out the following policy objective:
“This measure is part of government’s commitment to support homeownership and promote mobility in the housing market, in turn supporting economic growth. Increased property transactions also add to residential investment and spending on durable goods.”
Unfortunately, that was withdrawn on 28 November. It would be interesting to know whether that policy objective has been retained by the Government even though the HMRC policy paper has been withdrawn. Another paper issued on 23 September was “The Growth Plan 2022”, which I thought was great, as did many of my constituents. Paragraph 3.30 of the plan stated that the changes to SDLT would
“take 200,000 homebuyers, including 60,000 first-time buyers, out of SDLT entirely.”
Today, however, we are discussing a proposal by the Government, by way of amendments to the Bill, that would put those 200,000 home buyers, 60,000 of them first-time buyers, back into SDLT. Do we really want to do that? Do we really think it will help to move the housing market, boost growth and help people to have the mobility to get to new jobs?
This is not just about people being able to move to a new job by moving house; we also need to think about the damage to the environment being done by the large number of people who are now, having no alternative, being forced to engage in long-distance commuting. Last week, I visited a school in my constituency. The teacher showing me around has been driving regularly from Wales to do a great teaching job in the Christchurch constituency. Fortunately, she is about to move into the constituency, but that is after many, many months of that long-distance commuting. That is highly undesirable. It is bad for the environment and bad for the people involved, because it means that they are sitting behind the wheel of a car for far too long during the working week.
Stamp duty land tax is targeted against homeowners and it will have an adverse effect on labour mobility. Yet the Prime Minister, in his speech on 4 January, was complaining—I agree with him on this—that a quarter of our country’s labour force is inactive and, in this Bill, he is introducing an additional tax on the very mobility that he should be espousing. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet has said, SDLT is a tax on downsizing: it makes it much more difficult for anyone to receive a significant return by selling a larger house and purchasing a smaller one.
My biggest complaint, though, is that the provision hits hardest those for whom homeownership is least affordable. The latest figures, produced by the House of Commons Library in December, show that, in Christchurch, the average house price is now 11.8 times earnings. The national average in England and Wales of eight times is bad enough, but why are we imposing that extra burden on those buying houses in places such as Christchurch? The latest figures from the 2021 census show that the dream of a homeowning democracy espoused by generations of Conservative politicians since Margaret Thatcher, and first raised in 1975, is not one of this Government’s priorities.
Sir Christopher Chope
I think it is very sad and embarrassing that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition should be crowing at that statement.
Mr Perkins
Just to clarify, I am not remotely crowing. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. This Government have hugely failed on allowing people to buy their own homes. It is a national disgrace. I support what he is saying; I am not remotely crowing.
Sir Christopher Chope
I accept that I used the wrong expression in suggesting that the hon. Gentleman was crowing. But may I set out the basis on which I have these concerns? In the Prime Minister’s speech on 4 January, there was not one mention of the word “housing”, let alone any mention of the expression “home ownership”. Why is that? We obviously have a real crisis in housing and home ownership on our hands. We are facing a potential fall in house prices this year—predicted by Oxford Economics to be about 12%, but who knows? Having stamp duty land tax, even at temporarily reduced levels, will mean that the burden of the reduction in house prices will be borne by those people trying to sell to a greater extent than would otherwise be necessary, because potential purchasers will have to budget for making SDLT payments to the Government.
You can tell, Mr Evans, that I am very concerned about the Bill. When I see that the Prime Minister has declared that the people’s priorities are the Government’s priorities and that we will rebuild trust in politics through action, all I can say is that I do not believe that the new measures in the Bill accord with the people’s priorities because I think those priorities are for a permanent reduction in stamp duty land tax and even, potentially, the abolition of that tax, rather than reintroducing it at a higher level in 2025.
When I was talking earlier today to a member of the Government’s Treasury team, I was told that one reason why my amendment (b) could not be accepted by the Government was that it had not been cleared by the Office for Budget Responsibility. I ask rhetorically, “Who is in charge?” Are we really saying that the Office for Budget Responsibility is able to forecast things to the extent of £1 billion here or £1 billion there? I do not think it can, and if that is the best that the Government can do in arguing against amendment (b), I hope they will think again about whether to accept it.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
When this Bill was previously before the House, on 24 October last year—indeed, on the day we last changed Prime Minister, so it was under a different Treasury Minister—I asked the Treasury to analyse the potential harms caused by excessive second home ownership and holiday lets. I thank the Minister for her ongoing engagement on this issue, as well as the rest of the Treasury team. I have spoken to them on numerous occasions about the many complex taxation issues causing an imbalance in our housing market in constituencies such as mine, which I hope we can take steps to address in the coming months.
We know that when stamp duty was last reduced post pandemic, it generated a surge in short-term holiday lets and second home purchases. Indeed, 25% of purchases in my North Devon constituency during that period attracted the higher rate of stamp duty as an additional dwelling. However, we have no information on what proportion might have been long-term buy-to-let landlords. Alongside the many challenges in our North Devon housing market, we have seen a 67% decline in private rentals, with a surge in section 21s enabling landlords to take advantage of the tax inequalities between long and short-term rentals.
We desperately need to find a way to encourage buy-to-let landlords. The complexity of paying the 3% levy for an additional dwelling is, in many ways, a distraction from a Bill designed to help first-time buyers in particular on to the housing ladder. The removal of stamp duty saves thousands for anyone buying their first home—up to £425,000 at this time. When the numbers are fully analysed, in this legislation the maximum benefit to somebody buying an additional dwelling is just £2,500. We need to be just a bit realistic about whether that will be a large enough sum to motivate a change in behaviour in people who are buying additional properties—their second, third or fourth home.
For more than two years now, I have stood up in this House and asked for steps to be taken to tackle the housing crisis in North Devon. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill has now been amended to reflect the concerns of constituencies such as mine. Indeed, it is good to see Conservative-run councils in Devon and Cornwall taking steps to adopt measures in that Bill to double council tax on second homeowners. It is disappointing that Lib Dem-run North Devon Council has not taken such steps, but I remain optimistic that it will.
I very much hope that the paper I have submitted to the Treasury on behalf of Conservative colleagues—it includes many suggested changes to the tax system to tackle the imbalances between long and short-term rentals, and to continue making it easier for local families to buy and rent in places where they grew up or where there are huge numbers of job vacancies for them—will pave the way to looking more closely into the matter. I hope that the Treasury team’s door will remain open to MPs to meet and tackle this issue.
Victoria Atkins
May I place on the record my personal appreciation of the intensive work that my hon. Friend has put into this issue on behalf of her constituents and the wider south-west? Many south-western MPs are concerned about this issue, including—dare I say it—hon. Members from the Whips Office, who cannot stand up and speak. I am extremely alive to the issues that she raises. I wonder whether she would do me the favour of coming to see me at the Treasury over the coming months so that we can discuss further the issues in her constituency and the interesting ideas she has put forward.
Selaine Saxby
Nothing would give me more pleasure than to go back and speak with the Minister about these matters. We all worry about why the NHS is struggling to recruit. I can quite definitively tell people here today that the public sector struggles to recruit in North Devon because of the housing crisis.
We on the Conservative Benches are keen to tackle this issue. Yesterday’s cross-party drop-in session was hugely helpful. We heard from the officials behind the legislation, as well as from the Minister. It is just a shame that Opposition Members did not turn up—not one of them. They have tabled a number of amendments to the Bill, but do we really need to put reviews into legislation? One cannot help but wonder whether such amendments are politically motivated rather than aimed at delivering real change to constituencies that urgently need their housing markets to be rebalanced.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
It is an honour and a delight to follow my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). May I say at the outset that I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that you should be Sir Nigel, Mr Evans? If I call you Sir Nigel, will I have as much time to speak as my hon. Friend?
It is a pleasure to speak because, as the chair of the Back-Bench Treasury committee, I have done a lot of work on stamp duty policy, and I have had a slightly perverse interest in stamp duty for the last decade or so and written various policy papers and research reports on it. We all support raising the level of home ownership. In fact, rates of home ownership started to decline under the previous Labour Government. There is a home ownership gap of about 5 million people who want to own their own home but cannot. I will support all measures—well, pretty much all measures—to increase home ownership. Clearly, we are teetering on the brink of recession and need to promote economic growth, so I very strongly support the broad thrust of the Bill in cutting stamp duty to help people get on to and up the property ladder and to stimulate economic growth. I have some reservations about the proposal being temporary and about it applying to second properties.
I will address some of the key themes of stamp duty policy. We have heard various calls today—not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—to abolish stamp duty outright, and in fact, I have called for that before. But it is not just Conservative MPs who think that stamp duty should be abolished outright; the Institute for Fiscal Studies, on whose advisory council I sit, talked in its magisterial work on taxation policy—the Mirrlees review—about all the damage of stamp duty and called for it to be abolished.
Lord Macpherson, a former permanent secretary at the Treasury, gave evidence fairly recently to the Treasury Committee, on which I sit, about tax policy. He highlighted all the damage that stamp duty did to the economy, for many of the reasons that my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) set out earlier. Lord Macpherson certainly would not be sad to see its demise.
I want to raise a slightly more nuanced point than the outright abolition of stamp duty, which would lead to a big problem with revenue, as it raised £14 billion last year in total—about £4 billion for commercial property and £10 billion for residential. That would be a hole. My more nuanced argument is that people buying houses to live in are overtaxed, but people buying properties either as second homes or for investment are undertaxed. Exactly 10 years ago, in 2013, I wrote a paper arguing for a higher rate of stamp duty for people who are buying homes not to live in. Fundamentally, homes are for living in. Two years later, the Government introduced that policy. It is now the additional premium. I do not think the Government introduced it in the right way and there are all sorts of problems with it, but I will not go into detail on that now. The stamp duty regime at least recognises the difference between people buying properties for investment or as second homes as opposed to people buying properties to live in as their homes. That tilts the property market in favour of those buying homes to live in, which is welcome.
Tim Farron
I apologise for intervening on the hon. Gentleman in his good, interesting speech. He said that it is possible for stamp duty purposes to distinguish between a second home and a first home. That means it would clearly be possible to distinguish between second homes and first homes for planning purposes, which would give local authorities the power to ensure that they protect a minimum number of homes for local families. I gave the Government the opportunity just before Christmas to vote for an amendment to do that—why does he think they did not do so?
Anthony Browne
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I must admit I do not know the reasons behind that, but it clearly is possible, at least from a taxation point of view, to distinguish between homes for investment and homes for living in. From a planning point of view, there are probably other considerations.
Anthony Browne
There may be many reasons.
The capital gains tax regime already distinguishes between homes for investment purposes and homes for living in. People do not pay capital gains tax on the home they live in, but if they do not live in it, they do pay. The reason that people buying homes are overtaxed has been laid out by many colleagues, so I will not overlay that, but clearly we need labour mobility and for people to be able to live in appropriate housing. If we overtax housing, we end up with lots of people living in inappropriate houses, not least the home hoarders at the end of their working lives and the empty nesters whose kids have gone and who live in too big a house and do not want to move. That has a damaging impact on labour mobility, as people want to move around the country. It is the most economically damaging tax.
The reason I say that people buying second homes for whatever purpose or homes for investment are undertaxed is that stamp duty is a transaction tax. All other transaction taxes—we can argue about whether VAT or excise duty on petrol are transaction taxes—are flat-rated. People pay the same rate, whatever the value. We pay 20% VAT whether we are buying something for £10, £100 or £100,000. Stamp duty, however, is a progressive transaction tax, with a lower rate at the bottom end that progressively goes up, as it is designed now. That zero rate and lower rate for lower value properties is for social reasons. It is basically to help first-time buyers get on the property ladder, which is welcome, and to help people get up the property ladder. That is a valid social reason to have progressive stamp duty, but that reason does not apply to people buying second homes or investment properties. There is no reason to have a graduated stamp duty to help property investors get on to the property investment merry-go-round.
Sir Christopher Chope
Does my hon. Friend also agree that somebody in Christchurch who is having to buy an average priced house at the cost of £405,000—as compared with someone in Louth and Horncastle, who can buy the same house for £200,000—should not be taxed double, in a sense, in addition to having to pay a higher mortgage?
Anthony Browne
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He proposed earlier that stamp duty should be based on the area of the property; I have some reservations about that for economic efficiency reasons. One of the considerations of taxation should be the ability to pay. If someone is buying a house for £400,000, clearly they will be able to pay a bit more tax than if they were buying a house for £200,000. But if the Government follow my proposal to get rid of stamp duty on residential properties altogether as an objective, his constituents will not have to pay any stamp duty whatsoever. They will pay the same stamp duty as the people buying houses in Louth.
Victoria Atkins
It is a pleasure to rise after the stirring final sentence of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne). I thank Members around the Chamber for a really interesting and constructive discussion that has sometimes veered, dare I say it, into almost a philosophical debate about the very existence of stamp duty, markets, supply and demand and principles of economics. It has been a fascinating debate, and I thank all Members, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) and for South Cambridgeshire, for putting forward their long-considered thinking on this particular tax. In the interests of frankness, I have to manage expectations and say at the Dispatch Box that we have no plans to abolish stamp duty land tax, precisely because it raises billions of pounds a year, but I suspect that will not stop my hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch asked a specific question about a flat rate of 1%. I had hoped to be able to answer it in this debate, but I am not able to, so I undertake to write to him. He and others across the Committee raised the very important issue of housing supply. This affects affordability in all our constituencies, including areas that have popular tourist destinations such as the constituencies of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, and also city centres. That is why, as part of our work over the last 12 years, since spring 2010 more than 800 households have been helped to purchase a home through Government-backed schemes including Help to Buy and the right to buy. We operate a range of relevant schemes that make home ownership more affordable, including the lifetime ISA, and those are important precisely for the reason that has been argued so cogently by Members: the housing market has at times raced ahead of local incomes and affordability.
Colleagues across the House raised the issue of building new properties, which has been a subject of debate when considering other pieces of legislation before the House. I hope Members will be pleased to hear that in 2019-20, almost 243,000 additional dwellings were delivered—that is a net figure—which was the highest in nearly 30 years, and the Government are on track to meet their commitment to deliver 1 million additional homes across this Parliament. Colleagues also raised the very important issue of the supply of new affordable housing, which is a priority for the Government. In the spending review of 2021, we confirmed £11.5 billion of funding for the affordable homes programme from 2021-22, which is the largest cash investment in affordable housing for a decade, providing up to 180,000 new homes across England.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet brought his expertise as a chartered accountant into the Chamber; he is on another matter of House business and apologises for not being able to be here now. He raised the issue of retirement downsizing. The point I will make—and I hope to repeat it to him in person—is that the measures set out in the Bill will also help those who are looking to downsize. If someone is moving from a property in, say, the second tranche of tax down to one that is zero-rated, they of course will be able to benefit from that. It will reduce the stamp duty charge for movers by up to £2,500.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire came up with a great many ideas, which I know he will continue to raise with me through his chairmanship of the Conservative Back-Bench Treasury committee. I take his point about other taxes being involved in the average purchase of a home, such as, we hope, when people are able to buy furniture and make the changes we all want to make when we purchase our next home. I hope that measures such as the energy-saving materials VAT exemption will help in some of those instances. However, I appreciate his point about the lever that stamp duty can apply.
Before I move on to the Opposition amendment, I want to reiterate that the Bill as it stands will mean that 43% of transactions—our constituents buying their homes—will not involve stamp duty. It will also mean that 98% of first-time buyers in several regions will pay no stamp duty. Again, I hope that addresses some of the issues raised.
The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) urges us to support Opposition amendment (a). To put it into context, there were about 1,025,000 residential transactions in the year 2020-21, of which around 237,000 related to additional property transactions, which includes not just second homes but buy-to-let properties. I will come in a moment to the significance of the rental market in this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) set out so starkly, there are real issues in the housing and rental markets in particular parts of the country, and we want a national tax to help across England and Northern Ireland.
The Opposition amendment would remove purchases of additional property from the scope of the Bill and the temporary cut to stamp duty land tax, which we argue would have an impact on rental supply and, in turn, tenants. Through the 3% surcharge in the Bill, we are ensuring that those who purchase additional homes—in other words, both landlords and those purchasing second homes—will still pay stamp duty. Those buyers are not exempt from stamp duty; they will all continue to pay stamp duty, because the 3% surcharge will continue to apply to all of them. As I described, a sliver of properties within the £125,000 to £250,000 price range are affected. Even with that sliver, the maximum saving possible for those purchasing additional properties is £2,500.
I want to put this amendment into the context of the private rental sector. The 4.4 million households in the rental sector remain a vital part of the housing market. Renting is the long-term housing reality for many. While we would very much like renting to be a stepping stone to people buying their own homes, we have to understand that, in certain parts of the country, the markets are so hot that for many people, including those people we would love to encourage to be first-time buyers, renting their home is the reality. We must therefore ensure that the measures we take do not imperil or endanger that market, particularly when households are struggling with the cost of living. Further constraints on rental supply will mean higher costs for tenants. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon set out the significant impact on and decline in the long-term rental market in her constituency. We understand from Zoopla data that rental prices in the country increased in August by nearly 12% year on year. We argue that accepting this amendment would make that situation worse.
We understand the impact of second homes on some of our most popular tourist destinations, such as the south-west. In fact, we are taking practical measures to address that.
Through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, we are setting a new council tax premium on second homes of up to 100% and strengthening the existing premium on empty homes of up to 300%. That means that someone with a second home could face an additional council tax bill of nearly £4,000.
Tim Farron
To follow up on that, is it not right to say that people who have second homes pay additional council tax only if those homes are empty and unfurnished, so a very small percentage of those who have second homes will be affected? Does the Minister understand the evidence that the 2020 stamp duty cut fuelled a second home boom? On that basis, why has she done nothing to listen to rural communities such as mine about that and to mitigate it in some way by accepting my amendment or that of the Opposition?
Victoria Atkins
If I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he has misunderstood the measures in the Bill, which introduces a premium on second homes of up to 100% and a strengthening of the existing premium on empty homes. I appreciate his point about empty homes, if people are moving or returning to their second homes, but that is not the scenario everywhere—indeed, in my constituency, I can think of examples where that is not the case. We are trying to use practical measures so that local communities can decide how to deal with it through council tax.
I was talking about complexity. We want to ensure that the system is as simple as possible for taxpayers, which is why we have the consistency of rate bands between the standard rate and the rate for additional dwellings.
Amendment (b), which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, seeks to extend the period from 31 March 2025 to 31 March 2028. It is important that the Government maintain a commitment to fiscal responsibility and that requires difficult decisions, as I have set out. The Chancellor was clear about that in the autumn statement, and I hope that the ministerial team have been clear about that when we have spoken at the Dispatch Box. The Government will continue to take difficult decisions to get the public finances on a sound footing and to get debt falling in the medium term.
We therefore announced that the stamp duty cut will end in March 2025 as part of that commitment. It will remain in place until then to support the property market through what we all acknowledge are difficult times. We believe that we have struck the right balance between ensuring support for the jobs and businesses associated with the housing market and the Exchequer cost.
The remaining amendments tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee refer to reports and reviews, if I may summarise them in that way. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire reiterated, it is a fundamental principle that we are loth to include reporting and reviewing requirements in primary legislation. In any event, we do not believe it to be necessary, because the Government already publish a wealth of data on those matters. For example, HMRC publishes data on property transactions and stamp duty land tax receipts, including data on the use of first-time buyers’ relief. To help hon. Members to understand what that means for our constituents who are first-time buyers, the Bill will mean that they can access up to £8,750 in relief. It is a great shame that Opposition Members propose to vote against that relief.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities also publishes the English housing survey. Data on property prices, including at a local level, is published through the Land Registry. The Government published a summary of the measure’s impacts, including on the Exchequer, in November’s autumn statement. I hope that hon. Members who have asked for that data and those reviews will look at that wealth of information and draw their own conclusions.
I thank hon. Members for this debate, which I very much welcome, but I commend the Bill to the Committee. I particularly commend the Government amendments to enable first-time buyers in our constituencies to get on to the housing ladder, and to help other constituents move up the housing ladder and continue to thrive in our country in the next couple of years.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I put the Question, I should just say that I am anticipating three votes: two in Committee and one on Third Reading. The first vote will last for 10 minutes and the two subsequent ones will last for eight minutes each, so if I were you I really would not go anywhere after voting in the first Division.
Amendment proposed to amendment 1: (a), after “transaction” insert
“(except in relation to additional dwellings)”.—(Abena Oppong-Asare.)
This amendment is intended to remove the relief from stamp duty land tax for second homes (see Amendment 15 to leave out subsection (3)).
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Sport in Schools and Communities
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered sport in schools and communities.
I am really pleased to open this general debate on this important topic. We will all agree that sport has a vital role to play in all of our lives, through its power to be a force for good that brings communities together and as an important tool in improving the health of the nation. The topic of today’s debate brings together multiple areas of work from multiple Departments and arm’s length bodies, which is why I am so pleased to be joined by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools, who will be closing this debate. The work of both of our Departments, as well as many others, contributes to the overall Government mission to support everyone, especially children and young people, to be able to enjoy sport and be more active. As a Government, we are fully committed to supporting sport in schools and communities.
I wish to take a moment briefly to reflect on the power that sport has to bring us together. Last year, we again saw so many unforgettable moments that transcend beyond just the single match or competition, such as the fantastic success of our Lionesses winning at Euro 2022. That inspirational tournament was a truly ground-breaking moment for the sport and has supercharged interest in the women’s game.
We also hosted the Commonwealth games in Birmingham that saw more women’s medals awarded for the first time and truly showcased the fantastic region of Birmingham and the west midlands. We saw success at the men’s T20 world cup and at the rugby world cup. We also hosted a fantastic rugby league world cup tournament here in the UK, with victory for our fantastic wheelchair team. I was very lucky and fortunate enough to be there and see that fantastic victory in person.
The benefits of participating in sports and doing regular exercise are well known. Undertaking regular exercise helps mitigate a wide range of health conditions, both physical and mental, vitally easing the pressure on our NHS. For example, sport and physical activity directly prevents 150,000 cases of heart disease and stroke and 900,000 cases of diabetes per year.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I am delighted to see both my right hon. Friend and the Minister for Schools on the Front Bench. My only regret is that a relevant Minister from the Department of Health and Social Care is not here, as they also put money into the PE and sport premium. Can the Minister reassure us that the Department of Health and Social Care are as engaged in this agenda as are the Departments for Education and for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport?
Stuart Andrew
Absolutely. I am happy to confirm that. One thing on which I am focused, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools agrees with me, is that we do work across Government, as there are benefits for all Departments in getting this area of work right.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister opened this debate by recognising all the brilliant English and British sporting achievements in 2022. I am sure that he will join me in congratulating the four Lionesses who were honoured in the new year’s honours list, which was much deserved. I wish that it had been the whole squad, but we will leave it at that. He will recall that I led a Westminster Hall debate last November on girls and women’s participation in sport following the Lionesses’ success. He promised to work with the Department for Education on ensuring that every child gets at least two hours PE a week. I would welcome an update on those discussions. Perhaps the Minister might mention that in his wind-up.
Stuart Andrew
I will certainly join the hon. Lady in congratulating those members of the team who were awarded honours in the new year’s honours list. Indeed, since that Westminster Hall debate, both the Secretary of State for Education and I have met with members of the Lionesses team and gone through further details. We hope to make more statements certainly by April of this year, because we recognise the importance of the suggestions that she has made.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Minister has mentioned a number of great sporting moments over the past year. May I put it on record that one of the great sporting moments was the stance that he took over Qatar, and that many of us appreciated that stance?
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) mentioned the PE and sport premium for schools. I have seen the advantages that that brings to disadvantaged children in my community. Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether the Government intend to continue funding that project? If he cannot confirm that now, will he write to me, because that project really does make a difference to those in local communities in my constituency of Eastleigh.
Stuart Andrew
I appreciate the kind words that my hon. Friend said at the start of his intervention. He is right to highlight the success of the PE and sport premium funding, which is exactly why the Government have doubled that funding. We are considering the arrangements at the moment for the academic year 2023-24, and I hope that we will be making an announcement as soon as possible.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that a good way of promoting sport within the public sector and in public facilities is a joint use of facilities between schools and the wider community, so that, with the right maintenance and support staff, those facilities can be used at weekends and during the holidays?
Stuart Andrew
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our Departments are working on that; it is going well in some areas, but we need to see it improve right across the country so that those great facilities are available to as many people as possible.
Stuart Andrew
I will take one more intervention and then I really must crack on.
Kim Leadbeater
The Minister has made some excellent opening remarks and there have been some excellent interventions already. Less than half of all children currently meet the daily guidelines for sport and physical activity, but 54% of children would like to do more of it. I hope the Government will commit to giving PE and physical literacy the focus and time in the curriculum that it needs, with properly trained and resourced staff who can inspire pupils to embed sport and physical activity as lifelong habits and, in the long term, to save our NHS.
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady is right to identify that the earlier we get people involved in sport, the longer they will hopefully continue to participate and live healthier lives. That is why we are working on developing the sport strategy, as part of which I will be working with my colleagues across Government to ensure we are maximising every possible opportunity to get people into sport and physical activity.
Stuart Andrew
I will do once more, but I am conscious there is not much time for Back Benchers to speak.
James Sunderland
The active lives survey published recently showed that in Bracknell only 41% of children are classed as being active. We are not entirely sure why that is; we are working with schools to try to remedy the issue, and with the fantastic sporting facilities in schools locally I am confident that we will do so. One issue raised by teachers is that the annual sports premium is only ever announced late in the financial year. Will Minister please make sure that we get early notification of that funding so that schools, teachers and clubs can plan ahead for the forthcoming year?
Stuart Andrew
This is the moment where I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Schools Minister is sitting by my side, so he can hear those messages and take them back to his Department. To be fair, he is already aware of those issues and will consider them when future announcements are made.
Sport also has the power to bring communities closer together through fostering social cohesion. It gives young people essential leadership and teamwork skills and has the power to tackle loneliness, reduce inequality, increase youth engagement and tackle youth violence. It is an essential part of a healthy and happy life. Research commissioned by Sport England shows that for every £1 invested in community sport there is a return of £4 in wider social economic value. That is why as a Government we are so committed to ensuring that everyone across the country has access to high-quality provision.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Will the Minister give way on that point?
Jamie Stone
The Minister is being very generous. I represent the most remote part of the UK mainland, and young people in Wick High School and Thurso High School find it very difficult to travel to Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Perth to participate. It is tough on school finances and tough on family finances. I understand completely that sport is devolved, but I hope that the Government are going to look at some scheme to help parents and children in the most remote parts of England to access sport so that they are not disadvantaged because of inequality—and, since he mentioned cross-Government working, could he then share that best practice with the Scottish Government?
Stuart Andrew
Always happy to give advice to the Scottish Government. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight those points and that is exactly what we will focus on in the sport strategy. There are hard-to-reach areas, more rural areas and areas of deprivation in other parts of the country too, so that will be a focus of the strategy that we are currently developing.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister give way just one more time?
Stuart Andrew
I am just going to carry on a bit, because I am conscious that we do not have much time and many Members want to take part.
We know that there are significant disparities across the country, from Southall to Sunderland, and we are committed to tackling them. I make clear that it is my personal priority to do so. Through our arm’s length body, Sport England, we invest more than £250 million of public and lottery funding annually. Over the past 12 months, 19.2% of Sport England’s local-level investment has been for projects in indices of multiple deprivation or IMD 1 areas, providing direct support to organisations and communities in the areas that need it most.
Having the right facilities of the right quality is fundamental to a strong sporting community. That is why we are acting to deliver the facilities that every community needs, right across the UK. We are investing a total of £230 million between 2022 and 2025 in all four home nations. That includes an existing £18 million annual commitment in England, delivered via the Football Foundation in partnership with the Football Association and the Premier League. We hope that that investment will build or improve up to 8,000 facilities across the country, especially in the most deprived areas, and not just for football—40% of our investment will deliver facilities that support multiple sports. We are also investing £30 million, together with the Lawn Tennis Association, to renovate and repair thousands of public park tennis courts.
We are also working to ensure that major events have a significant and lasting impact on the communities in which they are held. During the summer, I was fortunate enough to visit the new facilities at Leigh Miners Rangers, which benefited from £350,000 as part of the rugby league world cup social impact programme. It is a thriving community hub that was galvanised and reinvigorated by that tournament. We recognise that we need to maintain progress, and, as I say, we will publish this year a new sports strategy that will set out how we will continue to support people, no matter who they are or where they are from, to enjoy the benefits of participating in sport.
Seema Malhotra
Will the Minister clarify whether the strategy he is referring to will be the updated school sport and activity action plan, which has been an area of concern, and whether there will be time for consultation before that plan is published so that voices can be heard as part of its development?
Stuart Andrew
The sport strategy that I am referring to is the wider, cross-Government one, but there will be the other report that the hon. Lady refers to. The Minister of State, Department for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb) will be able to give a bit more of an update about that in his closing remarks. Now that is dodging a question!
Ensuring that those from hard-to-reach communities get opportunities to play sport is really matters to me personally, and I look forward to working with Members across the House to make progress in this area.
Kim Leadbeater
I thank the Minister, who is being extremely generous with his time. He makes some valid points about community facilities. Yesterday, the Government announced changes to the energy bill relief scheme. I am really pleased that they are committed to providing additional support to organisations such as libraries and museums, but can the Minister tell the House why sport and leisure centres were not included on that list? Swimming pools in particular face incredibly high energy bills. Many are threatened with closure or have already closed, including Batley baths and recreation centre in my constituency, which is, sadly, temporarily closed. Those are hubs in the community, so this is not just about physical wellbeing but about mental wellbeing, social cohesion and lots of other things besides. Can he confirm whether that will be looked at and whether the Government will be able to provide such facilities with the support they need?
Stuart Andrew
I am acutely aware of the concerns of many hon. Members about leisure centres and costs. Of course, the scheme that was announced initially has helped a great deal in that area, but to recognise the importance of the matter, I am holding a roundtable with some interested bodies in the coming weeks to look at it in more detail and see what else we can do.
As a Government, we are focused on how we can support our children and young people to become more active. Quite simply, sport and physical activity are a lifelong habit that needs to be carefully nurtured. We are committed to ensuring that every child, regardless of their background, has access to and benefits from quality sporting opportunities. Dealing with this challenge has never been more important than when we are coming out of the pandemic. Some 2.2 million children—or 30%—are not meeting the chief medical officer’s guidance on levels of activity. I was pleased to see in the latest active lives survey for children, which was released in December, that children’s activity levels have recovered to pre-pandemic levels. There were particularly significant increases in the activity levels of teenage girls. Although that positive progress should be applauded, we know that more work needs to be done to ensure that every child realises the benefits of being active and playing sport.
We are taking action to tackle that challenge. In partnership with colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, we continue to invest £320 million per year in the PE and sport premium to provide dedicated funding to primary schools to deliver high-quality PE provision. We also continue to fund the school games programme as a vital tool to encourage children to compete in competitive sport.
Damian Collins
I am grateful. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Sports Trust in Folkestone and Hythe, which delivers a lot of primary school sport activity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in encouraging best practice, it is important to look not just at levels of activity in and out of school, but at the improvement in academic attainment in schools that do a lot of sport? It has much wider benefits than just physical health, including academic attainment.
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The benefits of physical activity are widespread, as I mentioned at the beginning. He is right to highlight that point, and we will make sure to consider it as we develop the strategy.
Last year, we saw how sport has the power to inspire. The fantastic success of the Lionesses marked a step change for women’s sport in this country, and we are fully committed to ensuring that all girls have equal access to provision within schools and to looking at how PE can deliver that. As a Government, we are committed to publishing an update to the school sport and physical activity action plan this year, which will set out our ambitions and next steps to support more children to take part in sports.
In conclusion, I welcome this debate on such an important topic. As I have set out, we are already taking action, and as we look to publish our sports strategy later this year, and the updated school sport and physical activity action plan, we will set the blueprint for how the Government will continue to support more people to enjoy the benefits of sport and then take advantage of the many benefits that we know it brings for everybody.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Happy new year to everybody. It is the first time I have spoken in the House this year. It is a pleasure to be here on behalf of the Opposition. I agreed with much of what the Minister said. Sport and physical activity are essential elements of a modern, healthy, successful society, and keeping active is vital for personal physical health and mental health and for the social development and wellbeing of young people. We know that physically active children are happier and have higher levels of academic achievement than their less physically active peers.
Sport and exercise bring people together and have the power to build healthier, happier and more connected communities. Sport is not just about the benefit to individuals; it can be harnessed to tackle many of the important challenges we face as a society, whether it be loneliness, health inequalities or high rates of mental ill health. Getting people fit saves the NHS money and reduces pressure on public services. Sport can extend and save people’s lives. It is not just about taking part in sport; it is about sharing the joy of it. Watching sporting events together brings the nation together.
Today’s debate comes as we look back on a fantastic year for British sport. As we have heard, whether it was Wimbledon, the Commonwealth games, the rugby league world cup or the football World cup, we came together in support of our national sports stars. The Lionesses’ stunning success at the women’s Euros was a special highlight. We have given them our admiration and they give us inspiration. Our top athletes can be fantastic role models for our young people and ambassadors for their sports. With the right Government intervention and support, major events can help us build a lasting legacy and get more people involved in sport.
Today’s debate also comes two days after the Public Accounts Committee published its report, “Grassroots participation in sport and physical activity”. It found that the Government
“lacks a compelling vision for integrating physical activity into everyday life”.
The report confirms what the National Audit Office report told us last year. We were promised a golden age of British sport after the 2012 London Olympics, but the Government have squandered that legacy. Adult participation in sport fell in the first three years following the 2012 games. Ministers abandoned plans to track the legacy of the 2012 games in 2016, so we cannot make any judgments about any legacy delivered from the £8.8 billion that was spent on the games.
Labour urged the Government not to repeat the same mistakes with the Birmingham Commonwealth games, but again, according to the Public Accounts Committee, the Government
“has no mechanisms in place to monitor the long-term participation legacy from the Commonwealth Games.”
We cannot afford to keep making the same mistakes, so we look forward with eagerness to the publication of the Government’s new sports strategy, but I have to ask where it is. We were told last summer that it would be published in the summer, alongside all the other Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport papers that were promised and delayed last summer, including the media Bill, the gambling White Paper and the White Paper on football governance. If we want to protect the clubs that sustain our communities, we need to get on with the recommendations of the fan-led review of football.
Kim Leadbeater
The shadow Minister is making some excellent points. He is right that time is pressing. We need action now. We will all have fantastic community sports clubs in our constituencies that are struggling because of the cost of living and energy bills. Grassroots sports clubs are at the heart of our communities. Does he agree that the Government must commit to provide them with the funding and support that they desperately need at this time?
Jeff Smith
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend anticipates my remarks. We need to support those grassroots sports clubs through the cost of living crisis and get on with ensuring that the bigger professional football clubs have a framework that protects them and the communities that they support and thrive in.
Jonathan Gullis
Carol Shanahan, the co-owner of Port Vale football club, regularly raises with me how the funding model in a football pyramid works. If we moved to a model where 70% of the combined Premier League and English Football League TV rights went to the Premier League and 30% went to the rest, that would have a massively positive impact and enable grassroots clubs to see longer term investment. Does the shadow Minister agree that the Government should urge the EFL and the Premier League to do that?
Jeff Smith
I certainly agree that we need a better way of distributing finance down the pyramid. In her report, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) left it for the FA and the EFL to come up with a formula. That is the right thing to do at the moment, but they are taking their time. They need to come up with a formula that does what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) says and get money down the pyramid.
We are told that the sport strategy is delayed because of ministerial changes. I very much like the Minister; I hope he maintains his job despite the current ministerial merry-go-round in the Tory party. But if that is the problem, given the chaos in Government, I wonder if we will see the sport strategy before the next election. Once again, Tory party chaos gets in the way of Government action.
We need action. Currently, over a quarter of adults are classed as inactive, along with almost a third of children and young people. There are stark divides in the level of physical activity between different demographics and communities. The covid pandemic has not helped. There are now 1.3 million more inactive adults than before the pandemic. Worryingly, the people who are less active are those living in deprived areas, women, young people, over-75s, disabled people, those with long-term health conditions, and people from black, Asian, and other minority ethnic backgrounds. In many of those groups, activity levels have fallen more sharply since the pandemic. Those disparities start early. Some 35% of children in the least affluent families do fewer than 30 minutes of activity a day, compared with 22% of children from the most affluent families.
How do we tackle this issue? We need schools and community sports clubs to be able to step up and narrow the gaps, but in the last 10 years, state secondary schools in England have lost over 36,000 hours of PE from the curriculum. The national curriculum states that every young person is entitled to experience high-quality PE, but over the last decade school accountability has been increasingly focused on core academic subjects. PE is often neglected in favour of other subjects.
As we have heard, funding for PE and school sport is too often made available only on a short-term basis, with decisions coming at the last minute, leaving schools unable to plan for the long term. We are losing PE teachers: there are 2,700 fewer in England now than in 2011. By ending tax breaks for private schools, the next Labour Government will recruit thousands of new teachers, create a new entitlement to ongoing teacher training and reform the narrow progress measures that deprioritise physical education in the curriculum.
Children and young people’s physical activity rates have now recovered to where they were before the pandemic, but that was not a great place. Fewer than half of children meet the chief medical officer’s guidelines to take part in an average of 60 minutes or more of sport and physical activity a day. There is a physical activity gender gap: girls start being less active than boys from the age of five.
Labour believes that the Lionesses’ victory last year should represent a turning point for women in sport, inspiring more girls to play football in particular and sport in general. According to Sport England, less than two thirds of all schools currently offer equal access to girls’ football in PE lessons. Labour will introduce an equal access guarantee for school sport, instead of the current situation where girls can be taught “comparable” sporting activities, which reinforces traditional barriers and stereotypes for girls and women. We have to let children and young people explore a range of sports from a young age.
Kim Leadbeater
It is excellent to hear Labour’s plans, but I go back to the point that we need action now. The Prime Minister said last year said that he
“would love to see all schools provide two hours of PE a week”,
that he would “tighten accountability” around the primary school PE and sport premium, and that he would ensure Ofsted looked at sport. Ultimately, unless we have healthy children, it does not matter how good they are at maths, science or anything else. That is why we have to value PE on the curriculum more than we do. Will my hon. Friend join me in calling for the Minister to ensure that the Government view PE on the curriculum as a priority?
Jeff Smith
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is an expert on these issues, and I agree with every word she said.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hard-working volunteers and community organisations that kept sporting activities happening as best they could through the pandemic and who do a fantastic job week in, week out, keeping our local sports clubs going. I also pay tribute to local authorities, which provide much of our sporting infrastructure. Without local authority sports facilities, many people would struggle to access sport, but local government has been the hardest hit part of the public sector over the last 10 years, and it shows. I remember the pain of having to close local leisure centres because of Government cuts in 2011. A high proportion of our local sport and leisure facilities are at the end of or beyond their operational life and in desperate need of renovation. Councils do not have the resources for this, and we need to give councils the ability to keep sport alive in our towns and cities.
Grassroots sport in our communities is now under more threat from the cost of living crisis. Soaring energy bills are hitting gyms, leisure centres and especially swimming pools. Operators are facing bills that are up to 200% higher this year compared with the last normal operating year, 2019, and costs are set to increase by another 240%. Even before the energy crisis took hold, Swim England warned in 2021 that nearly 2,000 pools could be lost by the end of the decade. One in four councils has potential plans to close leisure facilities, and over 40% need to make cuts to physical activity services. The District Councils’ Network says that seven in 10 councils are considering scaling back their leisure services in response to these financial pressures.
Munira Wilson
I completely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the strain on council finances. Councils often run swimming pools, but Hampton pool in my constituency—recently voted one of the country’s top seven heated lidos—is totally community run, by a charitable trust. It is not run by the local authority, so it does not have that level of security, and given that it has been left out of the energy bills discount scheme update that was announced yesterday, it is under a lot of financial pressure. I welcome the fact that the Minister will hold a roundtable, but it is important to recognise that not all swimming pools are run by local authorities.
Jeff Smith
The hon. Lady makes a really important point. The announcement of the new energy bills discount scheme yesterday came as a massive disappointment to the sector. There is no mention of sport and leisure facilities, no acknowledgment in the scheme that certain services such as swimming pools are particularly energy-intensive—they are not on the list of energy-intensive sectors—and no offer of bespoke support. To quote Huw Edwards, the chief executive of ukactive, the new scheme
“will fail to give thousands of pools, leisure centres, and gyms the support they need to avoid further service restrictions, closures, and job losses.”
Ukactive says that 40% of council areas are at risk of losing their leisure centres or seeing a reduced service before the end of March this year, so the support that has been offered past that point will come too late for many.
I have to ask the Minister, what are the Government going to do to save these vital community assets? I look forward to the roundtable and hearing what he develops from that, but are they content to see pools and leisure centres close up and down the country? How does he plan to boost physical activity rates and sporting participation when the Government’s lack of support will lead to closures and price rises? It is not just councils that are feeling the pinch. Over a quarter of adults across the UK think they will need to cut back on their own sport and physical activity because of rising costs, so will the sports strategy, whenever we see it, contain plans to save our leisure facilities?
A decade on from the 2012 Olympics, despite the success of our brilliant athletes and the best efforts of our community volunteers, physical activity is flatlining, school sport is declining and facilities are under threat. The Government have failed to make the best of sport as a vital element to prevent ill health and boost the economy. Those failures will cost us all more in the long run, piling pressure on public services. The Government should use this debate as an opportunity to set out what they will do differently to promote PE in schools, address the inequalities in opportunity and participation, ensure we have the pools, gyms and leisure centres we need and to build a proper legacy for the money we have spent and the brilliance of the sporting heroes who inspire us. It is time for the Government to raise their game.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I refer the House to my various sport-related entries on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. When David Cameron rang me in May 2015 to ask me to be his Sports Minister, I asked if I could have school sport in the portfolio. When he said no, because he had already appointed that Minister—who, for the record, turned out to be an excellent Minister—I replied, “Well, I have already failed.” While I do not believe that I failed as Sports Minister, I was never going to succeed in getting the absolute best results in children’s activity because I did not have responsibility for the part that introduces children to sport and physical activity in the first place.
That remains the case for ministerial responsibilities today—we have two excellent Ministers on the Front Bench, so this is no criticism of them—as was noted in the Public Accounts Committee report published over the weekend. I will be honest: it was a tough read. I am very proud of the sports strategy, published in 2015, which aimed to rejuvenate flatlining participation. While it did do that to some extent, it was perhaps not to the level we would have all hoped. As the Committee notes, part of that is due to the lack of delivery in other Departments, not DCMS. It also notes that the one cross-departmental group that tried to ensure progress of delivery ceased after I left in 2018. I encourage the Government to revive these important checks as part of the new sports strategy, which I am sure will be a welcome refresher of the now seven-year old strategy.
School sport underpins long-term success in the nation’s physical and mental wellbeing. We need a bold and ambitious plan that starts at reception and builds appropriately and consistently throughout formal education. With a son in year 2, I have never had more insight into the challenges teachers face in delivering the curriculum along with the additional demands we in this place put on them. However, the needs of the curriculum and the benefits of physical exercise complement each other, not compete against each other. Schools with good PE outputs often have good educational attainment levels. Statistics show that physical health improves mental health, concentration levels, happiness, behaviour, confidence and resilience.
The challenge is, how does sport fit into the school day, and how is it funded? I hope the Minister can deal with the latter point today and pledge to confirm the funding for school sport for the next academic year at the earliest opportunity. If we want decent provision, it is essential that it is planned well in advance. Our children need activities that give them a thirst for movement. They want and need variety that is not always about competition. Planned expenditure is vital for this and, in turn, will enable school day planning. I share the Youth Sport Trust’s view that PE should be a core subject, but also that wraparound care could be more active. We often cite the difference between state and private provision. Facilities is obviously a point of difference, but so is the type of after-school offering. This has to be funded, so let us fund it. It is not misspent public money, for it will save the taxpayer in the long run by mitigating the poor physical and mental health that costs the NHS so much.
Although I have referenced the need to provide non-competitive sport, it would be remiss of me not to mention the success of the Lionesses and their subsequent letter to, as it turns out, both the former and current Prime Ministers about the delivery of football to girls. Currently, only 67% of schools offer football equally to girls and boys. Not every girl wants to play football—this girl did, although I was not allowed to—but how would they know if they were not even being offered it? Without an introduction in school, few will independently seek out clubs, so the pipeline of talent is blocked before it really starts.
The FA has three asks with which I totally agree: a minimum of two hours of PE a week, Ofsted inspections of school sport, and long-term funding for PE and school sport—Ministers have already heard interventions from hon. Members on that point. Without that, we will continue to see only a trickle of progress, rather than the flow that should follow such an almighty national team success. This point also applies to women’s rugby and cricket.
To turn briefly from education to health, we need to grip the social prescribing revolution and use physical activity more. There are excellent examples of link workers signposting people to physical activity, which does not have to be sweaty but could be walking or joining the local ramblers. It is good for people’s physical and mental health, and for tackling loneliness, for which the Sports Minister also has responsibility.
To give an example, a friend has just been diagnosed with early osteoarthritis. The doctor’s response was to suggest calcium, which she cannot take because of the post-breast cancer pills that she takes. No one has suggested that she should do strength training or low-impact exercise such as walking or tai chi, which are proven to support bone strength. I could speak about the social prescribing of physical activity for ages, but since neither Minister present is responsible for the public health through physical activity budget or policy, I may well put in for another debate. It is yet another example of the PAC’s point about disjointed policymaking on sport.
On community sport—I appreciate that I am rushing now—there is much to celebrate in our communities. Active Kent & Medway continues to fund sporting initiatives and projects across my constituency, as well as the rest of the county. Medway Council continues to fund free swimming for under-16s and over-60s. At the other end of the constituency, I recently had the pleasure of opening a brand new bike pump track in Snodland. We have many committed volunteers around the constituency who provide some form of activity, competitive or otherwise, for my constituents week in, week out.
All those facilities and initiatives will help to drive up participation across communities in Kent and Medway, and to improve physical and mental wellbeing, but they need more support, as well as that recognition and celebration. We need planning, however, to be more conscious of the need to integrate physical health and wellbeing into its thinking—something that I know the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care also believes in. We build large estates without giving any thought to integrating physical and mental health, or we build an estate next to a woodland and then put a road through the middle that makes it entirely inaccessible to people. We have to think more about that.
As other hon. Members have, I will briefly raise financial support for leisure trusts and facilities, such as swimming pools, although I appreciate that falls outside the remit of either Minister. Such community facilities use a significant amount of energy. Many are still feeling the after-effects of covid-19 and are now being affected by the rise in the cost of living. I would therefore be grateful if the Sports Minister could clarify what discussions he has had, and whether he can bring forward the roundtable that he suggested might happen in a couple of weeks. These are now urgent asks from those facilities.
I stand by my opening comments: the Sports Minister can do only so much to get the nation fit and healthy, because success is reliant on other Departments delivering better school and community sport. I accept that my sports strategy is outdated; it did what it needed to do at the time, but it certainly requires a bold, ambitious refresh. Given that I am sure it is being worked on at pace, I look forward to seeing it published soon and I hope that what it sets out will improve the physical health and wellbeing of the nation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the next speaker, this debate needs to finish at 7 o’clock and I need to get the wind-ups in as well, so my advice is to speak for a maximum of six minutes. I would rather not set a time limit, so colleagues should be conscious of each other.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I entirely agree with what she said about the problem of how many of the things covered by DCMS, as I know from sitting on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, also fall under other Departments and they therefore do not get the action they sometimes need. That is a problem for DCMS that the Government need to look at across the piece.
I am very pleased to be able to take part in today’s debate about the importance of access to sport in schools, and the importance of sport not just in already established communities, but in creating new communities. I am a big believer in the power of sport to bring people together, and also in the health benefits of regular exercise, both mental and physical. It is so important that children have access to sport in school—to a range of sport—and that that access is equitable and fair, whether for children who want to go on to compete at the highest level, to do such things in their spare time for fun or to do so as part of their school curriculum.
For a start, getting involved in sport and playing sport has incredible health benefits. That does not mean people going out and setting records; it means people going out on their own or with friends to keep fit. These regular sessions are so important in keeping people healthy. Whether it is the Saturday park run with family, Sunday netball or Monday night football, having such an opportunity and getting people out with friends or with clubs is so important.
Access to sports is also really positive not just in engaging local communities, but in creating them. It is such a good way for people to connect with others who have similar interests, in a supportive environment and where people can learn from each other, make friends and get to know others in their local community. They might have been dragged there by a friend who did not want to go on their own, or perhaps they were inspired by someone they saw doing sport on TV.
That brings me to my next point. As has been mentioned by a number of speakers, the Lionesses had an incredible win this summer, bringing football home. The feeling the country got from such a victory was not that it was a remarkable miracle, but that it was the result of the hard work of many people over years and years. It is the result of incredible leaders in the game such as Baroness Sue Campbell at the FA, Barbara Slater at the BBC and Alex Scott on TV. It is also the result of volunteer coaches up and down the country going out at weekends to give girls the chance to play, and having to fight for pitch space, resources and attention. We must not forget the huge commitment and sacrifices that family members make in supporting our young people. This was shown most recently so clearly by Sunderland’s own Jill Scott, who said in a recent visit back to her youth side of Boldon girls, near Sunderland, that she does not think she would actually have gone on to play for England without the support of her coach. It is people such as her coach, Paul—we must pay tribute to them—who do so much work to give opportunities to young people outside the school setting.
That brings me to two further points. First, so many leisure centres and sporting facilities that such teams rely on are under threat from rising energy costs, as many people have mentioned, and there are so many at risk of shutting. I would be interested to know what more the Government are going to do to support this vital sector. Secondly, there is still massive inequality in access to sports for boys and girls. According to the FA, only 67% of schools offer football equally to boys and girls, which is just up from the 63% when the letter was published in the summer, but this drops to around 41% in secondary school. I have to say that things have improved massively since I was at secondary school in the 1970s, when girls were not allowed to play football and when the sports we played depended on the likes and dislikes of the sports teacher. Things have improved, but not enough. How are we supposed to inspire the next generation of Lionesses if our girls simply do not have access to the same opportunities as boys? There is so much lost potential.
After their win in the Euros final, the Lionesses wrote to the current Prime Minister and the previous Prime Minister, saying that
“we see this as only the beginning…We want every young girl in the nation to be able to play football at school…This is something that we all experienced growing up. We were often stopped from playing. So we made our own teams, we travelled across the country and despite the odds, we just kept playing football.”
They said they wanted their legacy to inspire a nation, and they have inspired a nation, but this is a big opportunity to make a huge difference. I want to echo their calls for change. I want to ask the Government what they are doing to heed these calls and properly invest in girls’ sport to level the playing field not just in football, but in all sports. It is what the Lionesses deserve, and it is what our young girls deserve.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), who spoke about inspiration. I want to talk a bit about the value of PE and sport in schools, before turning to a few issues in my constituency.
There has been a change in culture. Like the hon. Lady, I recognise that there has been some improvement since I was at school. In the 1980s, sport seemed to be all about competition: those who could be brilliant at sport got the support, and those who could not, like me, did not get that support and were not that interested, and the sport teachers were not that interested in them. Indeed, my sports and PE teachers might be slightly horrified to see me speaking in this debate, but as schools Minister I saw how sport can inspire children in all sorts of schools and settings to achieve and engage, whether, in my constituency, at the Aspire alternative provision academy—where they have a fantastic partnership with our local professional rugby side, the Warriors, which I will of course mention—or at the amazing Perryfields pupil referral unit. I was delighted to see that the head of the unit very deservedly featured in the recent new year’s honours. At break times at the unit, all the teachers and staff go out and play football with all the pupils, helping them to engage and feel accepted.
We have seen some welcome improvements in recent years in terms of activity and sport, some from the Government, some from outside and from the teaching sector. The Daily Mile, for instance, is particularly popular in primary schools; it is great for young minds, getting people out and active and helping children to concentrate in class.
The Minister mentioned the doubling of the sports premium, which was of course very welcome, but I join in the many calls we have heard for more consistency, transparency and clarity in that funding. In a recent meeting of the Worcestershire Association of School Business Management, one of the burning issues they raised with me was the very short notice they had to implement the funding that comes for the PE premium. They said that if they had greater certainty they would be able to do so much more. The holiday activities and food programme has been a brilliant intervention to support both activity and healthy eating, but the demand I consistently heard from the sector, which I echo for my right hon. Friend the Minister—my predecessor and successor on the Front Bench—is for consistency and clarity in funding.
I held a meeting today, thanks to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), in which the point was made that the problem is not necessarily the scale of funding for sport in schools, but rather the timing and certainty, to enable schools and the people who work on sport to make their plans. With that in mind, I urge the Minister to bring forward the school sport and activity action plan, which has been promised since 2019. I know from my time in the Department that it was a priority that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) was working on, and I hope the Minister can reassure us that it will be coming forward soon and he will set out plans for a multi-year funding settlement.
I want to touch on the importance of schools being able to work with local professional sports clubs. During my time at the Department we had a fantastic visit to Blackpool, where we saw the value of sports mentoring by Blackpool FC for children in alternative provision. We heard today from Alan Watkinson, the PE teacher who helped inspire Mo Farah—we may hear more on this from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston—and his suggestion of a national network to drive forward the approach to sport is worth exploring.
Sports and PE activity can also make a contribution to attendance and children’s engagement in schools. It is no secret that my predecessor as Chair of the Select Committee, and now a Minister in the Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), was passionate about bringing back in the ghost children—making sure we can get children back into school. It is logical that children who might not perhaps be able to engage with academic subjects will engage better if they have the opportunities that come from sport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, physical activity often complements academic performance. Used in the right way, sport can boost the confidence of children in school, and be an aid to concentration and an inspiration to those children.
I want to touch briefly on the situation in Worcester, where we are extremely fortunate to have a huge range in the community and professional sporting offer, with rugby union and cricket right at the top of that. There is, of course, football—we have the wonderful Worcester City FC—fantastic hockey, basketball and netball facilities and a university that is trying to put itself at the forefront of inclusive sport, looking at what we can do with wheelchair sport and so on, which can be a brilliant inspiration to children of all abilities and with all needs. We also have the headquarters of the Royal Life Saving Society. I join the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) in her call for more help for community swimming pools, because it is so important for children to have the opportunity to learn life-saving skills as well as basic swimming skills.
With the sports Minister in his place, I want to wrap up with a final plea—I cannot resist—on the plight of the Worcester Warriors, which I have addressed many times before. I will not detain the House for long about that, but I remind him to keep doing everything that he can to secure the future of professional rugby in Worcester at Sixways, because it does so much to support community sport and community inspiration for sport, including in our schools.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) and other colleagues. I think there will be a fair amount of consensus in this debate. Sport in our communities and in schools has had a renewed focus through the pandemic and after it, with sport and physical activity being so important for mental and physical wellbeing, which is critical to all of us and to our communities. I emphasise the point made in an intervention about the importance of health and of the Department of Health and Social Care team being actively and prominently part of the debate and strategy. It is disappointing that a Minister from the DHSC is not in the Chamber.
I thank organisations from my constituency, where there are a lot of grassroots sports and football clubs, including Bedfont Sports, the Eagles, CB Hounslow United and Hanworth Villa FC. I also thank our PE teachers. We do not always talk about the interface of confidence in physical activity in school building confidence to take part in physical activity outside school. Indeed, it can also work the other way around.
My own story is that when I was growing up I had friends at school involved in the local athletics club. Athletics and sport were not a big thing in my family; I suspect that is common in families who have not had a tradition of sport. However, I started going to Feltham athletics club, the same place where Mo Farah trained—I was there a number of years before him. The first time that I went to an athletics meeting, I did not realise that people were going to play sport and have a competition—I went to the first athletics meeting thinking that it would be a meeting and that we would all be sitting around. As it was, because nobody else had really turned up, I had to take part in everything for Hounslow. That was probably the only time in my life when I would have ever won—I did win—medals and trophies for taking part in javelin and shot put. It was one of those things where you do not know what you do not know until you have the confidence to take part and somebody walks through that journey with you.
Kim Leadbeater
My hon. Friend makes a really valid point, and I think that other hon. Members have said likewise. Can we all take this opportunity to pay tribute to key people within society, including the PE teachers and sports coaches who are working day in and day out? They can often be the only person a young person feels comfortable working with and speaking to, and they are often the inspiration that gets them through some difficult times.
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. She has reminded me of the story of a young boy who was pretty much suicidal after the impact that the lockdown had had on his mental health, and of the support and camaraderie that his local football club gave him, including the coaches, who became in loco parentis. I also acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Worcester about the link between physical activity and wellbeing and educational attainment. That area really needs to be highlighted as well as the purpose for having a sports strategy at all.
I want to talk about the Schools Active Movement and its role in effectively utilising PE and sport to enhance the lives and development of young people. I thank the hon. Member for the meeting that we had today with Alan Watkinson, who was a co-founder of the Schools Active Movement and who also runs Sport Impact in Hounslow. There are a number of serious challenges that affect young people for which physical activity is part of the solution: childhood obesity, deteriorating mental health, deteriorating physical literacy—not a term we use enough—and the growing gap in children’s physical and mental wellbeing between affluent and deprived areas.
The Schools Active Movement, through school sports partnerships and their equivalents, has had huge success in supporting schools, but it faces significant challenges. It talks about the sector having different pots of funding. That is helpful and important, but the lack of an overall coherent strategy is having a significant impact on effectiveness in achieving the best outcomes for young people. Local organisations have to spend too much time and resource fighting to access funding, and ensuring it is spent strategically and effectively. Schools, and particularly those without an active school sports partnership, are struggling to know what, strategically, to spend the funding on.
The lack of a coherent strategy on infrastructure and the year-to-year funding announcement is seriously affecting the ability to attract trained staff and to plan ahead. I heard one example of somebody who was trained and playing a really important part in local school sports. They could not, with the cost of living crisis, cope with the lack of certainty and left their role to become a postman—a really sad result. On the impact that can be achieved locally, Sport Impact supports schools to take a strategic approach. Its training has built teachers’ confidence to teach sport. From almost 50% of teachers lacking the confidence to teach PE, more than 50% are now highly confident and none are lacking confidence.
Finally, to mention the asks that have been shared with me, one is the urgent need to maintain present infrastructure to protect the value of games organisers and the national network, and with confidence about funding. The second is to work together on planning for the future, consulting on the updated school sport and activity action plan, and a central role for a national network, like the Schools Active Movement, to play its part within an updated school sports strategy.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
This is an area I am particularly passionate about. If, when I was younger, my ability had only matched my enthusiasm, I would have had a career in sport and would not be stood here now.
We are very fortunate to have two of our most effective and best Ministers here, who can make things happen, so to be helpful—the Whips know how helpful I am—I have a shopping list. Get your pens ready! At this stage, the Whips had probably better cover their ears, because my first ever rebellion was successful. It was on the sports premium.
The former Labour Government introduced the sports premium at the time when they had secured the Olympics. The £150 million a year funding was under very real threat. Before the Labour Government had introduced it, only two out of five school children were regularly active. By the end of the programme, it was still two out of five. It therefore seemed obvious that it had not moved the dial. What the Government had not appreciated, however, was the impact on the other three out of five children who had been doing absolutely nothing before. They were still not doing enough, but they were now certainly doing more than nothing. Rightly, the Government made a U-turn, not only securing the £150 million but doubling it to £300 million. That has now gone up to £320 million. I join everyone who is encouraging a long-term commitment to see that in place. It is important because we know that only 42.2% of young people are active for 60 minutes or more a day. It is frightening to think—heaven knows!—how little, if anything at all, 22.7% are doing.
For schools, part of the problem is a lack of PE teachers. The previous speaker, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), highlighted a lack of confidence, so I welcome the changes to the initial teacher training. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools, because my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) and I raised in a recent Westminster Hall debate an offer from the Professional Footballers’ Association, which supports thousands of ex-footballers—male and female—in looking at their next career. It is keen to encourage teaching as one route and is offering to support some of the associated costs. To the Minister’s credit, he met us very, very quickly and his team are working with the PFA. Hopefully, that will lead to an increase in people who have confidence and knowledge, in PE and in other areas of teaching.
I also want to see school facilities being opened up. That was my big ask when I raised the matter with the Prime Minister during the negotiations in our latest leadership “X Factor” contest last year. There are some fantastic sports facilities in all our communities, but some of them are under lock and key or, if they can be accessed, come at a huge cost that prices out volunteers willing to give up their time. When I was younger, people—or maybe it was just my parents—thought nothing of sending their children 16 miles away for the day without having them report back, but I am a parent now and people are understandably very conscientious about keeping sight of their children and making sure that they play in safe areas. Gardens are one third smaller than in the 1960s, so we need every last good, safe facility to be open.
Frankly, any group that can provide constructive activities, which predominantly means sport, should have access to school facilities. It should be free, because as taxpayers we have already paid for it. In planning new schools, we should look to integrate sports facilities that would benefit from dual use, particularly those that have specific design needs. It is very difficult for gymnastics clubs to find buildings with sufficient rooms and parking, and the same goes for athletics tracks and many other sports facilities.
We should encourage sports camps. In my constituency, the Draycott sports camp regularly attracts more than 250 children—slightly more girls than boys—during school holidays. It is incredibly popular, not just with children but with parents fretting about what on earth to do with their children during the holidays. Mark Draycott, who set the business up and is also a teacher, benefited from a favourable deal with the school that made it open and accessible, and from having the skillset to engage those who are not involved in competitive sport—it is a fun sports camp. He has helped to shape some of the early thinking around the holiday activities scheme, which I want to see continuing to be expanded. I pay tribute to St Andrews Parish Council and Haydon Wick Parish Council, which topped up the four hours provided through the Government scheme to ensure that all children on free school meals had a full day of access.
I turn to communities. I put on record my thanks, which I am sure all hon. Members will echo, to the thousands of volunteers and professional staff who provide the opportunities for people to get involved. We all know of them through social media. I know that we all believe everything that is on social media: yesterday I saw a picture of a drenched child and his parents, who were saying, “Thank you so much for making these opportunities in all weathers.” I pay personal tribute to Roy Heather, a long-standing and much-respected volunteer at Swindon Supermarine football club, who sadly we lost last year. He was a true gentleman and typified everything that is good about the voluntary sports sector.
I know that there is an appetite for more in the area. I host an annual summer activities fair in front of my office, where lots of different teams, clubs and organisations, but predominantly sports clubs, come forward and say to parents, “I know you have to entertain your children for six weeks—this is what we can do to help with that burden.” Hundreds of parents and children come along and sign up for different activities. I encourage all colleagues to do something similar.
I turn to planning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, we need to ensure that there is sufficient usable space. In Swindon, where we have had loads of new housing developments, we make sure that that is a given. Green, usable lungs are incredibly popular.
We need to make sure that sports facilities promised are delivered. In Tadpole Garden Village, perhaps unsurprisingly, the developers are doing that last, not at the beginning. All play parks need to be accessible; as part of the disability commitments, we are going to make that happen. I pay tribute to Becky Maddern and Mums on a Mission for supporting me. As I say, let us look at sports with particular design needs and make sure that the right facilities are put in place. On leisure centres, I echo hon. Members’ comments about support with energy costs: it is really important that we do so and that we share best practice. There are lots of success stories where we are empowering sports groups and community groups to take ownership of facilities so that they can secure grants or charitable status and benefit from volunteers and their extra enthusiasm and motivation. We should champion that.
Finally, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford for pushing forward the fan-led review. We need to make sure that its recommendations happen and that we preserve what we are so good at in this country.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) for giving me a mention in his speech, and for the ideas that he contributed about engaging sportspeople in teaching. The premise on which our meeting with the Minister was based, for me, was the issue of male role models in teaching. I thank the Minister for his time, and I hope we can take that discussion forward.
I am pleased to be able to speak about the importance of schools. I am a self-confessed sports fanatic, or was until work and children got in the way of a life which, as a young person, I spent largely on a hockey pitch or in a gym. I therefore value the role that sport plays in people’s development, and their education in particular. I think it is too often undervalued by Governments of all stripes, given its benefits to health and wellbeing. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), who is no longer in the Chamber, mentioned the benefits to academic achievement, which are well researched and, I think, well understood.
Sport, particularly team games, encourages the social development of young people, and indeed teamwork is becoming more and more important in the workplace. All who have engaged in sport understand the highs and lows it can bring and the character, growth and resilience that come from that—the ability to deal with life. Sport builds discipline and determination, which is hugely important, and any funding that is spent on it is an investment in the development of independent, resilient, competitive young people who will be assets to our economy in the future. There are also massive health benefits, and I think the Department of Health and Social Care should spend much more time, energy and investment on sport as a preventive measure.
As we heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), this starts in our schools, which are the access point for so many young people. It is important to recognise that there is a great deal of work to be done. I want to focus some of my comments on the facilities mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon, behind school gates and so often locked away. Many communities do not have the basic sports facilities that they need. Research conducted by the Football Association has shown that 150,000 matches are called off every season because the pitches are not good enough to play on, and that the quality of one in three grassroots pitches is not high enough. I am pleased that the Government have sought to address that with funding for grassroots football facilities, and I look forward to the development of that project. In fact, there is significant funding for football, but sadly that is not true of other sports. I declare my interest as a hockey player.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman was right to make that important point about the huge benefits of sport in boosting the confidence and increasing the ambition of children and young people. As for the point that he has just made, does he agree that many grassroots football clubs are prevented from progressing because their pitches and other facilities are not good enough, although the young people and their teams may be excellent?
Ben Bradley
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Not just pitches but other facilities such as clubhouses provide a social space, and investment in them makes a great difference in leading people to come back every week to engage in sport, as well as attracting volunteers.
As a hockey player, I despair when I see AstroTurf pitches, in particular, fall into disrepair. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport needs to do some work on its understanding of what hockey pitches are publicly available and what their purpose is. When I asked, pre-covid, about the availability of hockey pitches in my constituency, the Department came back with a big list of 5G football pitches, on which hockey cannot be played—although that did not seem to be understood. In fact, no hockey pitches are available in my constituency, much to the frustration of North Notts hockey club, which is currently homeless. There does not seem to be the necessary understanding of the sport or the problem. Can the Department ensure that we have Football Foundation funding for multi-sport pitches that are genuinely multi-sport, and that some can be used for hockey as well?
One way in which to increase the number of sports facilities across the country would be ensuring that schools are able to open their facilities for public use. Nearly 45% of state-funded schools do not have that public access, which is a huge missed opportunity when it comes to grassroots sport. I know the Government are seeking to address the problem, but that seems to have been going on for a long time, and the situation has become worse post covid. I could give numerous examples, in Mansfield and across Nottinghamshire, of pressures on school budgets leading to the closure of sports facilities to the community.
As I said earlier, North Notts hockey club is currently homeless. In fact it has been homeless for 18 months, because the school pitch that it used to use is no longer available. I understand that schools want to prioritise education, given their limited funding, and cannot be expected to subsidise a leisure centre, and I think the community understands it as well—we all have sympathy for those schools—but the outcome is that football, basketball, hockey and other local classes and clubs are now without facilities. Those facilities are shut, just like 45% of other facilities, every night and every weekend. The nearest hockey pitch is 30-plus minutes away. For a club the size of North Notts, that is not viable, and it is really struggling. That cannot be good enough. I have tried to find solutions in recent months. I have even offered to fund things, and brokered discussions to no avail. The school will not act on this, although I am still trying, and the district council’s leisure trust will not run it. It remains shut, to the detriment of communities.
If we want to almost double the number of community sports facilities available nationally, the simplest way is surely not to build new ones but to ensure that the ones that already exist are open and available for use outside those hours. My right hon. Friend the sports Minister mentioned the strategy to fund and focus on hard-to-reach areas. This is a hard-to-reach area, and this is something that could be done.
I do not want to repeat what colleagues have said, as I am conscious of the time, but I reiterate the call for support for district council leisure centres, particularly swimming pools. That is a huge challenge, and I know that the Minister is committed to making some changes. I also stress the importance of the PE premium. An early, long-term decision on that would be hugely welcome, because an annual one-year settlement creates a hand-to-mouth existence for schools that do not know where they are going to be in September. We would not want or accept that for core school funding and we do not want or accept it for sport either, because sport should be part of the core curriculum. It can boost academic outcomes, and it can boost the Government’s overall aims in education. This should not be an either/or.
In conclusion, there is a huge amount to be gained from improving access, including equal access for girls, for those with disabilities—Mansfield is the home of powerchair football, a fantastic sport that is well worth going to watch—and particularly for disadvantaged communities, which often have the least access to high-quality provision and facilities. Sport provides a massive opportunity to learn and develop. It makes for more rounded, resilient and independent young people. It is an investment in our young people, but it is always undervalued. I hope that the Government will recognise some of the themes and challenges that have been raised today and act on them in the coming months.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), and hugely reassuring to see two very competent Ministers on the Front Bench listening to every word we say. It is also a pleasure to follow all the other excellent speeches that have gone before.
I am delighted to be called to speak in this debate because throughout my school days sport was a crucial outlet for a young boy, then a teenager, who was dyslexic and found academic study truly onerous and at times terrifying. I was fortunate to be educated in the private sector, where time was both granted and available for sport. In addition, we had the sports fields and support staff to ensure that a range of activities could be provided. It is my view that where the private sector leads successfully, the public sector should follow or certainly learn. Sport must not be a privilege; it must be available to all.
On that note, what has always baffled me is why the school day in this country ends at 3 pm. Too often, children return to empty homes or roam the streets aimlessly until their parents get home. Surely this mid-afternoon gap could easily be taken up by sport, especially in spring and summer terms. It is regrettable that both political parties have been guilty of selling off their playing fields over the years. Thankfully, since November 2016 schools have had to seek the consent of the Secretary of State to do so, and there is rightly a strong presumption against any sale.
Sport at school, for every pupil, is a gift that keeps on giving. Away from the two modern scourges of social media and the mobile phone, friendships are cemented, working as a team is understood, youthful exuberance is channelled, discipline is instilled, skills are gained and courage is tested—for it does take courage to fall on a loose rugger ball with the opposition bearing down on you. Crucially, one learns to win magnanimously and to lose gracefully. These are building blocks for life, quite apart from keeping fit. It is extraordinary that while PE is compulsory in the national curriculum, the Education Act 2002 prohibits the Secretary of State from prescribing an amount of time to any sport, although Ofsted recommends a minimum of two hours a week. That is just over one football match a week. I do not think that is nearly enough, personally.
I commend the many parents who selflessly give of their time to take their children to out-of-school activities. Unfortunately, many children do not have that sort of support. All too often, they end up doing virtually no physical activity at all. It is regrettable, but inevitable, that obesity among the young has risen, leading to a serious lack of self-esteem and the risk of being bullied. Well organised sport in school helps to tackle obesity and to improve behaviour, attendance, mental health and, as we have heard, academic achievement.
I fully accept that extending the school day and supporting sports such as cricket, rugby and football, and more, would need more funding, and I appreciate that a range of financial initiatives have gone a long way towards achieving this, but sports education, though compulsory, is given only two hours a week, when it should be a core subject like maths, English and science.
I can think of no better investment in the young than teaching them so many of the basics of life. The disciplines required on the sports field, whatever the sport, are no different from those required off the sports field. I was fortunate to learn the significance of physical fitness and good health at school. Once adopted, it stays with us for life.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Whether it be football, cricket or rugby, sport has been a key driver of social and community development in Lancashire. We have fantastic grassroots clubs, boxing facilities and tennis courts in my constituency of Hyndburn and Haslingden, and I have been working closely with schools and community clubs since I was elected in 2019. There are a few general issues I believe we need to address to further help schools and communities provide sporting opportunities.
The first is space, and that applies both to schools and to grassroots clubs. In a 2019 Department for Education survey, half of educational establishments said that the key barrier to providing more physical activity is space and facilities. I see this in my constituency, with schools such as The Hollins in Baxenden needing dedicated sports hall provision so that they do not have to travel elsewhere. The Hollins is eagerly awaiting an announcement on the next round of funding for the school rebuilding programme, as it is currently having to hold GCSE exams in the sports hall, meaning that classes of children have to sit in the changing rooms because they are unable to do anything during that period.
If we are to tackle childhood obesity, surely it starts by instilling a love of sport at school. In an era in which more than 80% of 10 to 15-year-olds have their own smartphone and more than 40% have their own games console, we are fighting an uphill battle. We also need to ensure our community clubs are fit for purpose and have the facilities they need.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
My hon. Friend is correct to highlight the importance of capital investment in new facilities. In Blackpool, we will benefit from a new £6.5 million sports facility at Revoe, thanks to Blackpool football club and the towns fund. Does she agree that this will not only deliver regeneration but help to achieve other levelling-up outcomes such as improved health and wellbeing?
Sara Britcliffe
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I believe the Government’s focus on sport and grassroots clubs is key to the levelling-up agenda.
It is vital that we ensure local authorities are prioritising green spaces for grassroots sport, and it is equally vital that local authorities inform grassroots clubs of relevant grant funding pots for which they may be eligible. These clubs often rely on dedicated volunteers who simply do not have the time or resources to navigate the complicated system of grants, loans and awards.
Hyndburn is a shining example of how the Government, local leaders and communities can work together to improve the sports offering. To that end, we have seen a £1 million investment in Accrington Stanley Community Trust, which will provide pitches and facilities to grassroots clubs long into the future. We have also seen the community ownership fund allow for the reopening of Clayton community centre, which houses Clayton boxing club, fitness classes and dancing. There has been a £450,000 investment in Hyndburn Leisure to reduce health inequalities, as well as separate investment in our tennis courts.
I wish, briefly, to touch on professional sport, which is key. Hyndburn has a fantastic community club in Accrington Stanley FC, which competes in the third tier of English football. The club gives thousands of year 3 children free team shirts every year, instilling in children a love of their local club and of football. It also provides great joy to many supporters who go to the games week in, week out to socialise with their friends and watch sport. It is essential that we safeguard community assets such as Accrington Stanley.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear me plug the fan-led review. I believe that the measures it sets out will help to promote sustainability in the English football pyramid and that the review’s implementation would see more clubs such as Accrington Stanley orientating towards their fans and investing in their communities. I will leave my comments on the main point of the fan-led review, but let me say that I welcome the Minister’s engagement in that and his continued support throughout.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is sad that sometimes these types of debates are not the ones that make the news headlines, as they should do; this debate shows great consensus across the House on the importance of this issue. I concur with a large amount of the comments that have been made, but let me add my two pennies’ worth.
In my brief time as the Minister for school standards, I was delighted to have the physical education and sports premium under my brief. One thing I instructed the officials that I worked with about was the importance of getting beyond the one-year funding settlement that always comes late in the academic year, meaning that teachers have already got curriculums planned and people recruited. It is essential that we not only announce such funding well before the Easter break—that is the very least we should do—but start to move towards a three-year to five-year funding agreement.
The Department for Education has done that extremely successfully with the holiday activities and food programme, which has been a real success in local areas such as Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, where we have the Hubb Foundation, led by the co-owner of Port Vale football club, Carol Shanahan, and one of its former professional footballers, Adam Yates. It has been serving more than 500,000 school meals to those on free school meals and providing thousands of opportunities each school holiday break to young people, particularly disadvantaged people. It engages with the schools to make sure that the young people on the pupil premium or on free school meals are the ones going to the clubs. It helps by using registers to find out what the engagement levels are.
I completely agree with my hon. Friends the Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) about school buildings sitting empty and idly by in our communities, despite being the beating heart of many of them. I was a teacher and I always found it shocking that a building that has the required safeguarding, security, kitchens and sporting facilities remains closed for six or seven weeks during the summer holiday—that is simply not right and we must do much more on this. Surely with small amounts of funding going into schools, we could make those facilities available at a cost whereby, working with volunteers, they can deliver or maintain things. There would be a hugely beneficial impact.
Let me give an example. The Government’s town deal funding for Kidsgrove of £17.6 million meant that we invested nearly £250,000 in the King’s Church of England Academy Kidsgrove, a secondary school, to put in FIFA-standard 3G Astro pitches. We had an agreement that the community would have access to those facilities in the evenings and at weekends. Not only is that generating income for the school; it has created a new job in the process, and it has meant that hundreds of people from across the local area are now descending on Kidsgrove, as the sporting facility sits right next door to Kidsgrove sports centre. As part of the town deal funding, it got nearly £4 million to reopen what is a vital community facility. That is creating a sports hub in an area where, sadly, childhood obesity is at about 28%, according to the latest figures I saw.
Those facilities are great for the local community and we are grateful for the Government funding. This is an example of how it can be spread across the local area. I want to thank Councillor Simon Tagg, the leader of Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council; the Kidsgrove sports centre community group, which is ably led by Mark Clews and others, including Dave Rigby, Ray and Councillor Gill Burnett; and Councillor Paul Waring, who is now the leader of Kidsgrove Town Council and has put money from the town council budget into the sports centre to make sure that the facility thrives.
Of course, as the sports Minister has heard already, leisure centres, particularly those with swimming pools, have to be included in any support for energy usage. I do not want this fantastic community facility, which was refurbished and reopened at the end of last summer, to have to temporarily or, God forbid, permanently close because of energy prices that are not its fault. They are not anyone’s fault, other than Vladimir Putin and his vile campaign against the people of Ukraine. We need to make sure that we re-encompass those facilities, so I implore my right hon. Friend to speak with Ministers in the Treasury and in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to include those facilities in the support for energy usage. I will gladly work with any colleague across the House to continue that campaign and have our voices heard.
We are also looking at facilities within our local communities. I have mentioned the Kidsgrove Sports Centre and the 3G astroturf pitch at the King’s School, but the Kidsgrove town deal meant that we installed a pump track such as the one my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) mentioned. The pump track was a new concept to me, but it has been my biggest success to date. Funding of £100,000 has created one of the largest such tracks in the UK. It was built by local contractor Clark & Kent, which has professional BMX bikers and former Team GB Olympians such as Kyle Evans working for it. This facility, which is free for the community to use, is on an old abandoned site at Newchapel Rec, which had some mud tracks built by the local community. People from as far away as Scotland and Cornwall have been emailing me to say what a great facility it is. Again, that is great for our local community.
When the Levelling Up Parks Fund was announced by the Government, I thought that a mistake had been made because Stoke-on-Trent was not included. I have got used to hearing Stoke-on-Trent being announced as somewhere receiving funding from this Government. So I am going to let the sports Minister lobby his colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and tell them that they must have made a mistake, that we are going to have a round 2 and that Stoke-on-Trent is going to get, I hope, around half a million pounds. I want to have a pump track revolution across my local area to make sure that we install more in places such as Middleport Park, building on the work by the Middleport Matters Community Trust, led by Vicki Gwynne and her amazing team, and building a facility not only to get people physically active, but engaged in learning softer skills, which are so important. We need to ensure that the BMX track in Norton and Ball Green is brought back into use, which councillors Dave Evans, Carl Edwards and local community champion Jenny Taylor have been long calling for. These projects are very important.
I cannot end my remarks without mentioning Port Vale football club’s tremendous day out at Wembley, albeit at the expense of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley): we thrashed them at Wembley to get promoted to League One, thanks to Carol and Kevin Shanahan’s revolution of that football club. There is a massive engagement now in football. Stoke-on-Trent North is home to Stoke-on-Trent Ladies in Smallthorne, Port Vale Women and Milton United football club, which has ladies and girls teams as well. A revolution is taking place in Stoke-on-Trent to get young people, particularly girls, invested in sport.
I agree that PE must become a core compulsory part of the curriculum. Two hours is the bare minimum that should happen. We need to make sure that Ofsted is properly inspecting that and that we have the right people going in to teach it. Teachers in primary schools are overworked already. We need to give them the support that they need to focus on the curriculum and use the expertise of sports stars—retired and perhaps amateur. Perhaps we could get Phil “The Power” Taylor out and about in schools around Stoke-on-Trent, which is his home. Let us make sure that that can thrive. For me, sport was a life saver—quite literally. I have openly talked about my own mental health struggles, having attempted twice to take my own life. Having a sports team and a fantastic sports coach in Mr McCollin at Princethorpe College taught me discipline and structure. He brought me into a community, which was that team. He taught me those soft skills, although I accept that I do not display them very well in this Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker. My mother would like to see them more.
If we are to truly educate not just bright minds, but great people, sport has an important role to play and I hope that we can go further. I welcome the Minister’s announcement of an incoming sports strategy. I hope that the Minister for Schools will be announcing very shortly that PE and sports premium and working towards a multi-year settlement further on.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, if by chance you had been at the Cricket Asylum at Sowerby Bridge at 2 pm on Sunday, you would have witnessed an epic quarter-final between the Northern Star Sixers and King Cross under-11s. I will not go into the result, but it benefited one of my children. What was heart-warming was the conversation that I had with the coaches of King Cross. King Cross is a cricket team based in the centre of Halifax. The HX1 postcode of Halifax had three teams going back over the 100 years. For various reasons, those three teams have disappeared. The centre of Halifax has a diverse population of people of different backgrounds and heritages, which is something to be celebrated, and a large south Asian population have made it their home. In 2018, Calderdale College began to run cricket lessons to see whether anybody there would be interested. Some young kids from the HX1 area, who had never played cricket before and never been offered the opportunity to get cricket coaching, went along.
Those cricket lessons continued at Calderdale College and enthused those young people, many from a disadvantaged background, with the idea that, “Yes, this is something we love.” Over time, the cricket club developed and in 2022 there was a public advertisement saying, “Please come to King Cross rugby club in the centre of Halifax, because we’re thinking about starting a cricket team.” Some 90 kids turned up from the HX1 postcode, from King Cross, and King Cross cricket club was born. That same cricket club plays in the indoor cricket league that my son plays in. It has five teams and young people who are a credit to their parents and to what the club is doing. It has devoted people from within the community, parents and families, there supporting those teams.
Those young kids have a purpose, they love their cricket and they are achieving something. Obviously, the starting point was Calderdale College, but that hub has thrived because of community. The three clubs that disappeared have been replaced by a new club that has taken over a facility, has not asked the state to be the answer to every prayer or asked for a huge handout, but has done it for itself. Cricket is now back and thriving in the centre of Halifax and those are the lessons we must learn.
I will confine my remarks in the time I have to community, rather than schools, which many of my colleagues have already talked about. We are utterly complacent in this debate about where we are with community sport. We often talk in generalities in this place, thanking everybody for what they do, and that is all very well, but we have a major problem with participatory sport in the community.
I will take football as an example. Anywhere in the country, I could go and find hundreds of under-10s, under-11s and under-12s teams; I would not be able to move for teams at that level, and people are committed to those teams. By the age of 14 or 15, participation has dropped off a cliff. In Huddersfield, where I was brought up—although I am the proud MP for Bury North—in the under-11 age group there are 90 cricket teams. For under-17s and under-18s there are only six. Something significant is happening and I still do not know what.
We can all say, “Oh, the kids have got lots of other things to do,” but they are not doing any other physical activity. In the old cliché, the old man that I am might say, “They are sitting in their bedrooms watching social media,” but something happens—[Interruption.] I am an old man. Something happens to the initial flames that were set, the things that were making young kids play sport at that age. For the sports I am talking about, it causes participation to jump off a cliff.
Another thing we should take from this debate is what it says about us as a society. I will give an example. Bradley Mills cricket club in Huddersfield was formed in 1875. It survived two world wars and the great depression, and thrived in a disadvantaged area. It was central to the community over 100 years. Somehow, in the 1990s, the society that 50 years earlier had seen that club as part of the heart of the community and of the links that bound people together disappeared, and people could not be bothered anymore. That club, which offered an outlet for young people in that area of Huddersfield, disappeared.
When I was young, my dad played football in the Huddersfield league. The best team in that league, every year, was Brackenhall. Brackenhall is a disadvantaged area of Huddersfield, and the club gave an outlet to young people who had challenges in their lives. There were no state hand-outs, just local people in that area supporting a club. That club has now come to an end.
I could point to numerous other examples, as I am sure other colleagues could, of clubs, especially in working-class areas, that are vanishing before our eyes. When we go to middle-class areas and see 100 or 150 young kids playing cricket on a Friday night, we kid ourselves that cricket is thriving. I nearly want to cry when I go and watch Radcliffe cricket club, which is in the Bury South constituency—[Interruption.] I will bring my remarks to an end, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I just want to make this point. Radcliffe cricket club was where the great Gary Sobers played. Looking back at pictures of Radcliffe cricket club from the 1940s and 1950s, it was a wonderful place at the heart of its community and encouraged community and physical participation. It now struggles to raise one team, let alone anything else. So as we congratulate ourselves and expect the state to suddenly put in a lot of money to make everything all right, there are some fundamental questions about why community sports that thrived over 100 years are now dying in many areas.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
I thank Members from across the House for their powerful and impassioned contributions to this good-spirited debate. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to conclude the debate as shadow schools Minister knowing that sport has a key role to play in ensuring that every child in our country succeeds and thrives, no matter their background or where they are from.
Those on both Front Benches kicked off the debate by making powerful and insightful comments. The Minister with responsibility for sport, the right hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), spoke about the many health benefits of sport and rightly praised the success of the Lionesses last year as an inspiration to us all. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), spoke about how sport can save lives, save the NHS and save public money. Yet the Government’s legacy on investing in sport has been limited, and the publication of relevant strategies remains long overdue.
The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) brought her usual expertise and guidance on these issues. I put on the record my thanks to her for her tireless work on the fan-led review. I know that Pompey fans are grateful for her efforts and I very much look forward to working with her as she continues that work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) spoke about how sport brings people together, and about the importance of equal access to sports and local facilities in communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) spoke about how confidence in sport leads to confidence in life.
As a number of Members have said, we do not have to look back any further than the Lionesses’ fantastic victory in the Euros last summer to see the massive impact that sport can have on our nation’s schools and communities. Not only can it boost the morale of the nation, but it can inspire millions to believe that they can achieve whatever they want if they put their minds to it. As we have heard, sport brings people and communities together, boosts mental health and physical wellbeing, provides employment and opportunities to many, and, for Britain, can be the means by which our nation’s traditions, culture and brilliance are broadcast to the world.
We should not forget the many grassroots organisations that do so much to boost sports participation across the country, as a number of Members have said. Last week, I visited Pompey in the Community, which does tremendous work using the power of football to bring people together, working alongside local schools to transform the lives of children in my city.
Jonathan Gullis
I suspect that a lot of Labour Front Benchers will be in Stoke-on-Trent ahead of the upcoming local elections and afterwards, so the hon. Gentleman should be aware that there is a great company called Bee Active in Tunstall. If he wishes to visit, I will happily visit alongside him, but if he wishes to avoid the Twitter trials of being caught and photographed with me, I would more than accept that. Bee Active is a fantastic contributor across Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire. It is a fine company that delivers the quality PE and sports premium that we urgently need.
Stephen Morgan
I am actually in Stoke next week, so perhaps we could meet up and visit that project—I would be delighted to do so; perhaps for reasons other than what the hon. Gentleman might expect.
Last season across Portsmouth and the surrounding areas, more than 35,000 directly benefited from Pompey in the Community programmes providing sporting opportunities to many who would otherwise not receive them. Nor should we forget the fantastic efforts of PE teachers and school support staff, who go above and beyond to build up young people’s confidence and encourage them to get active. Unfortunately, as we have heard, many such schools, grassroots organisations and leisure facilities now face major challenges from the cost of living crisis. Energy costs are increasingly eating up budgets, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington said. With more and more people struggling to pay for services, such as gyms and swimming pools, we sadly have already seen some sporting facilities shutting down, as my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) raised during the debate.
As has been pointed out by others in the debate, the 2012 London Olympics were meant to leave a legacy of increased sports involvement in schools and communities across the country, but according to a new report by the Public Accounts Committee, those promised benefits have failed to occur, with adult participation in sports actually falling in the first three years following the games. The report concludes that the Government
“lacks a compelling vision for integrating physical activity into everyday life”,
and the problem is not just with adult participation. According to official Department for Education statistics, the number of PE teachers has fallen by 3,000 in the past decade, while the number of hours taught has fallen by more than 36,000. That equates to an 11% fall in the hours of PE taught. That is why a Labour Government would boost the number of PE hours taught by hiring 6,500 more teachers and reforming the Government’s narrow progress measures, which can lead to physical education being cut out of the curriculum.
Stephen Morgan
I will make some progress. Labour would also capitalise on the momentum behind women’s sport following the Lionesses’ inspiring Euros victory and introduce an equal access guarantee for school sport, so that boys and girls have access to the same sports at school, rather than comparable sporting activities, which reinforces traditional access barriers for girls and women.
In conclusion, from Lewis Hamilton to Beth Mead, Andy Murray and many others, British athletes have delivered previously unthinkable success in recent years. These athletes are role models for our children and ambassadors for their professions, inspiring millions to take up sport and pursue their dreams. However, a decade on from the 2012 Olympics, the leadership of our athletes has been let down by the Conservative Government, with participation flatlining, sport in schools declining and school facilities forgotten. While our nation’s athletes continue to flourish, the Government’s performances increasingly flatter to deceive. Hopefully this debate provides the Government with a much-needed team talk to spark them into life to provide the vision for boosting sports participation across the country that we so desperately need.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Nick Gibb)
This has been an excellent debate with some excellent speeches by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members, including the hon. Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). May I start by paying tribute to the sports Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) for the important stand that he took in Qatar during the World cup? My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) made that point, too. I have to say that when I saw my right hon. Friend there, I found it extremely moving. I pay tribute, as the whole House does, to his courage in standing tall.
Sport has a vital role to play in all our lives, and there is an important role for schools to imbue a lifelong love of playing sport and taking part in regular physical exercise. It is clear from hearing Members from all parts of the House speak today that we share a commitment to ensuring that more children take part in PE and sport. I have to say to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) that we are exceeding our target for recruiting PE teachers. Last year, we exceeded that target by 143%. We recruited 1,521 teacher trainees in PE, far exceeding the target of 980 trainees. We have exceeded the target for PE teacher trainees for at least the past 10 years.
School is where many children and young people first have the chance to participate in sport. High-quality PE and sport in all schools is important to ensuring that every child and young person has the opportunity to take part in a range of sports. It can equip them to continue that engagement into their later lives, as a way of staying fit and active and enjoying the wider benefits that sport brings. That is why physical education is a compulsory subject within the national curriculum from key stage 1 to key stage 4. The PE national curriculum aims to ensure that all pupils develop the competence to excel in a broad range of sport and physical activities, exercise for sustained periods of time and engage in competitive sport and activities leading to healthy active lives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) highlighted the important link between competitive sport and young people’s confidence, resilience and determination. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch)—the former Sports Minister—made an excellent contribution, demonstrating her experience and passion for sport. She also made an important link between sport and wider cognitive benefits. She is right that sport supports other aspects of school life, including improved attainment, mental wellbeing and personal development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) made the important point about the link between schools with high levels of sport and academic attainment. For example, at the Northampton School for Boys, which has high levels of academic achievement, as well as providing an excellent PE curriculum for key stages 3 and 4 that exceeds two hours per week, it has made PE compulsory for all sixth-form students. In its timetable, Northampton School for Boys offers a variety of sport in winter, including rugby, health and fitness, basketball, hockey and swimming. In the summer, students take part in athletics, cricket, tennis and softball.
In addition to the PE curriculum, the school provides impressive extracurricular sport where children can attend sports clubs before and after school, during lunchtime and at weekends. There are 76 clubs meeting every week during the winter and 54 during the summer. The school has inter-house competitions in addition to the PE curriculum and extracurricular sport. There are typically 50 competitions a year at that school, in which every year group and form class is included. The school ensures that 100% of its student body is represented in at least two competitions annually.
A number of Members raised the issue of two hours of sport a week. Schools are free to organise and deliver a PE curriculum that suits the needs of all their pupils. The Department does not set curriculum time requirements for any subject, but we know that many schools already provide a minimum of two hours of PE and sport to pupils each week. I will look at how to support all schools to do so, supplemented by a good range of extracurricular opportunities.
The DFE school workforce census data for the 2021-22 academic year indicates that PE and sport account for around 8% of all teaching hours in secondary state-funded schools. A rather old 2015 Youth Sport Trust survey found that the average number of minutes of PE per week in state secondary schools was just under two hours, at 118 minutes for key stage 3 and 114 minutes for key stage 4.
The Government continue to fund the primary PE and sport premium, referred to on a number of occasions during the debate. With an additional £320 million of funding to primary schools confirmed for the current academic year, that now totals over £2 billion since 2013. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey said, we doubled that figure from £160 million several years ago. The PE and sport premium supports primary schools, special schools and hospital schools to make additional and sustainable improvements to the quality of PE, school sport and physical activity that they provide. The Government are considering arrangements for the primary PE and sport premium for the 2023-24 academic year and beyond. That funding will be announced as soon as possible.
I note the exaltations from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) for early notice to enable better planning. I also note the passionate advocacy for early notice by my predecessor—I should say my other predecessor—my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis).
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield raised the issue of the shortage of community facilities. The Government are seeking to address the lack of quality space for grassroots support through our multi-sport grassroots facilities programme. The Government have committed to delivering the facilities that every community needs. We are investing £205 million between 2022 and 2025 on top of an existing £18 million annual commitment in England as a step towards that ambition. A mixture of projects were selected for their ability to deliver improved facilities. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that £43 million has already been provided in 2021-22 to improve grass and artificial pitches, changing rooms and floodlights, to make a real difference to communities across the country.
Jonathan Gullis
I just want to make a brief point on community facilities. My frustration in the experience with Kidsgrove Sports Centre was that because we wanted to refurbish an existing building, Sport England was willing only to put in about £150,000. Had we tried to find a new site, we could have got £12 million for a brand-new facility; but we managed to build one for £7 million. Will the Minister engage with the sports Minister about how Sport England could be smarter in using taxpayers’ money more wisely to invest in community facilities and refurbish where we can, rather than spending more money by building new ones?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and it has been noted by myself and the sports Minister.
The sports Minister outlined the £230 million to build or improve community sports facilities. Alongside those community facilities, facilities on school sites represent an important resource for pupils and their families. Schools use their playing fields and gyms to introduce pupils to a range of sports and physical activities through their PE lessons and a variety of structured extracurricular activities.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) made an important point about the wider use of school facilities. The Department is building on the new funding for sports facilities by providing additional support to schools to open their sports facilities outside the core school day, at weekends and in holidays. Phase 3 of the opening school facilities programme aims to connect schools to national and local sporting organisations that can offer children and young people more opportunities to access extracurricular activities.
Ben Bradley
I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s engagement on this subject recently with my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon and me. He mentions funding for opening up grassroots facilities, which is gratefully received and often important. In the case of North Notts Hockey Club, which I raised earlier, all that is needed is a padlock with a code on it so that they can let themselves in. It is outside, and they are insured. This is about getting schools to want to open up these facilities to communities. They can do it. Will he consider what direction he might be able to give to help that happen?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I was influenced by the meeting we had recently with my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon about how we can engage new people to teach PE in our schools. He also makes an important point about how we can use taxpayers’ money cost-effectively to widen the availability of community facilities.
The Government also support physical activity and sport outside the school term, through the £200 million-a-year holiday activities and food programme. All local authorities in England are delivering that programme. Taking place in schools and community venues across the country, the programme provides disadvantaged pupils and their families with enriching activities including sport, as well as with healthy food.
We have heard how the brilliant Lionesses are aiming to inspire a generation to take up football. We want all girls to participate in sport, and that is why the Department for Education is funding SLQ Sports Leaders to deliver the “Your Time” programme, which gives girls aged eight to 16 access to competitive sport and leadership opportunities. Almost 1,000 girls have already enrolled in the programme’s second year to train as sports leaders and lead events and competitions for their peers. They are supported in their online training by inspirational sportswomen including England netball player Layla Guscoth and World Triathlon Series winner and Commonwealth games champion Jodie Stimpson.
The latest annual data from the Active Lives Children and Young People survey, released in December, has been very encouraging. The data shows that the proportion of children who are active has increased by 2.6% compared with the last academic year, bringing activity levels back in line with those seen pre-pandemic. That will be due to the efforts of schools, families and communities. There is still further to go, and schools have a central role to play—in particular, in ensuring that pupils benefit from high-quality PE lessons taught by confident and knowledgeable teachers. I join the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston and the shadow sports Minister, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), in paying tribute to the work and commitment of PE teachers.
The Government published their cross-Government school sport and activity action plan in July 2019, and we have committed to publish an update to the plan this year, to align with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s new sport strategy. The update will provide details on further action to help all pupils play a wide range of sport, both in PE lessons and through extracurricular activity. This is a Government who are committed to sport in our schools, and I thank all Members for taking part in this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered sport in schools and communities.
No. 52 Barrhead circular route
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition that declares opposition to the proposed withdrawal by McGill’s Buses of the No. 52 Barrhead circular service.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares opposition to the proposed withdrawal by McGill’s Buses of the N052 Barrhead Circular service, notes that the N052 Barrhead Circular service provides transport to local schools, access to shops and supermarkets, local community facilities including library, leisure and GP services, as well as other local amenities; further notes that it is a lifeline for the isolated, disabled, elderly and those who do not own a car; and further notes that the withdrawal of this service will adversely impact upon those who can least manage without this bus route, making them less able to connect with family, services, education and community.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage McGill’s to review this decision with a view to continued delivery of the N052 Barrhead Circular, appreciating its importance to the local community.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002791]
Strangford Lough: Tidal Wave Energy
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is indeed a pleasure to speak in the Adjournment debate—only this time not as one who asks for an intervention, but as one initiating the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jim Shannon
For once, I can give way—to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) first.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important Adjournment debate. As he travels from his home to his office along the Portaferry Road, he will know of not only the picturesque beauty of Strangford lough, but the energy there that could and should be captured. But is my hon. Friend prepared for the tidal wave and potential tsunami of interventions that may come in this debate?
Jim Shannon
I like to think I am well prepared for most things. Whenever those interventions come, I will be happy to give way.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned intervening, and it is a great pleasure to intervene on him. Does he not intend to intervene on the Minister at the end?
Jim Shannon
I will probably see how the debate goes; there may perchance be an opportunity.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I will allow the hon. Gentleman to carry on, but I just wanted to let him know, as a good friend to me and to many in this House, that although I have only seen the title of this debate—I have yet to hear the content—he has my full and absolute support for whatever he wishes to have.
Jim Shannon
That is the sort of support I am always looking for. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and the other Members for their interventions too.
I am pleased to introduce a matter that is of some interest to myself and, I suspect, should also be of some interest to those across the west coast of Scotland, England and Wales. For us in Northern Ireland, and specifically the constituency of Strangford, to have the opportunity to be involved in tidal energy would be a key development.
I thank Mr Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate. I know that the Minister will be aware of the energy crisis we are in, but I will give a bit of background. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, who is always very kind; his response was very helpful in the debate we had in Westminster Hall, and this debate carries on from that. I am aware that some of the current crisis is due to the war in Ukraine, and we all understand the difficulties that has caused to supply and price. I just make these comments to introduce the debate on tidal wave energy for Strangford lough.
I know that every representative in this House will share my experience of people ringing up for referrals to food banks and, increasingly, people asking for help with gas and electricity. While I welcome the help for households, which is months behind in delivery in Northern Ireland, by the way, I have real concern that every energy payment arriving in people’s accounts may be used for other things.
To give a bit of background to why this debate is important, someone in Northern Ireland who pays for their gas can top up by only £49 at a time, which means 12 individual trips plus booking a taxi. Added together, that underlines why Parliament is debating tidal energy in Strangford tonight and why we must make the long-term consideration of our secure energy supply a priority.
My office was fortunate to have a wonderful conversation with Professor Roger Falconer, emeritus professor of water and environmental engineering at the Hydro-environmental Research Centre of Cardiff University. He helped us by clearly putting forward some relevant information, so the conversation was illuminating and incredibly informative. He powerfully underlined that, if we invest long term in our facilities, our energy security can be home-sourced through the wonderful natural resources that God has blessed this country with. I have long believed that, so it is nothing new—I have always supported the idea of tidal wave energy in Strangford lough—yet the professor succinctly showed that the potential that I wish to highlight in Strangford and the Province applies UK-wide, including on the west coast of Scotland, England and Wales. It can be a clean energy solution, which we all know is the end goal.
As I have said in the House previously, we can depend on the sun rising and setting, so we can depend on the tides. The tidal potential of Strangford lough is incredible, as it is on the entire west coast of the United Kingdom. I am pleased to see that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) is present, because he always brings knowledge to such debates. I am sure that he will intervene at some stage and give us his thoughts on the way forward for the islands.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Go on then—the hon. Gentleman knows that we have a shared interest. Does he agree that, essentially, the exciting prospect of tidal power is that it offers an opportunity to get a baseload of renewable energy, not just because of the predictability, but because when it ebbs somewhere, it flows somewhere else? It does not suffer from the intermittency of other renewables.
Jim Shannon
How wise and true those words are. The right hon. Gentleman sets the scene for what I will say next.
Wind turbines are popping up as a quick fix. Undoubtedly, when the wind is blowing, that is tremendous, but we cannot tell in advance when the wind will be blowing. We can pinpoint the tide for decades in advance, however, as the right hon. Gentleman said. The ebb and flow of the tides at the mouth of Strangford lough is stronger than many on the west coast of Scotland and certainly the best in the Province. Professor Falconer highlighted in a lovely way that the highest energy use in Wales comes at half time when the England and Wales rugby teams meet. His view is that the peak tidal time could determine match times to subsequently make use of energy usage planning, which is imperative.
For that to happen, however, the Government must decide to invest, and that is my call today. They should invest not simply in Strangford’s potential, to which the title of the debate refers, but in the UK-wide tidal potential to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The ability to plan decades in the future is attractive in any policy, which is why I once again draw the Minister’s attention to the need for long-term investment in a clean, sustainable energy source that is not affected by goings on around the world.
There are two types of tidal energy: tidal turbines or streams, and tidal ranges. With a current of more than 2.5 metres per second, Strangford lough has obvious potential for a tidal stream, which is why there was a trial there with the 2008 SeaGen project. I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly then, as were some of my hon. Friends, and a member of Ards Borough Council. It was an incredibly successful pilot scheme, but it never seemed to go anywhere. Energy prices have risen, however, which makes the scheme more possible and acceptable.
The trial was commissioned by Marine Current Turbines, a subsidiary of British tidal energy company Siemens. It was an investment at that time of some £12 million. The project involved the installation of two 600 kW turbines producing 150 kW of electricity to the grid in July 2008. SeaGen generated electricity at its maximum capacity for the first time in December 2008. Without doubt, the scheme has produced 5 GWh of tidal power since its commissioning, which is equivalent to the annual power consumption of 1,500 households.
I am given to believe that the mouth of Strangford lough, with the ebb and flow of the tides in the narrows, could reliably hold up to 20 turbines. I am not saying that it should hold 20 turbines, but it could do so because of the flow of the tides there. That is enough energy for half the households in Northern Ireland to be cleanly supplied, and it is worth looking at. Indeed, I believe it cannot be ignored as the potential is truly enormous.
We know that wind turbines are easy to install once planning is passed, but they provide very moderate energy, and the density of water means that tidal energy is infinitely preferable. In my opinion, the tide in Strangford lough must take its place in the long-term provision of energy, and for this it needs investment. We need money put not simply into short-term wind turbines, but into engineering in the sea that can and will meet needs in the long term.
The second type of energy is tidal range, with a dam being built in tidal lagoons and suchlike. One example is the west Somerset lagoon, which has been strategically located on the southern coast of the Bristol channel basin between Minehead and Watchet to take advantage of the world’s second highest tidal range. It can generate the maximum energy possible while minimising the environmental, economic and visual disturbance, in that it provides coastal protection against storms and sea level rises, and has other environmental protections.
The West Somerset lagoon can generate 6.5 TWh per year of energy, which is equivalent to the energy needs of over 2 million medium consumption homes, according to Ofgem. Again, this shows what can be done, and if it can be done there, I believe it can be done elsewhere. Such a scheme could deliver continuous power with tidal phasing as well. This could, with short-term storage added to the scheme, deliver firm, continuous power. Here we have something that has been proven to be successful in the West Somerset lagoon, that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland believes to be successful in his constituency and that I believe could be extremely successful in Strangford lough in my own constituency.
It is my considered opinion that tidal range and tidal streams complement each other, and we should look holistically at our tidal regions to determine the best use of tides in such areas. To this end, my ask to the Minister —as he knows from the debate we had in Westminster Hall, but I will ask him again—is to consider putting in place a tidal taskforce to adequately evaluate not only our potential, but how we can practically begin the process of harnessing this power in co-ordination with marine conservation. We can do it, and it has been proven it can be done, and if it can be done in Strangford lough, I believe we can deliver the green energy that can supply many homes across Northern Ireland—not just in my constituency of Strangford, but indeed across the whole Province.
Talking about this in the House is necessary, but setting up a stand-alone dedicated taskforce to deal with this is just as vital as the funding stream that needs to be given to projects including Strangford lough and wider UK concerns. While tidal streams can be built quickly and the energy produced quickly—and this is tremendous for Strangford lough—the potential of the tidal range in Strangford lough and other areas will take greater planning and long-term strategy. Now more than ever, we have the wake-up call that we must fix this in the short term, but also invest in the long term. The time for planning the new Hinkley C was 10 years ago, and I do not want to wait 10 years for this House to be looking back and asking why we did not invest in tidal range, which has the potential to provide the same amount of energy output in a much safer way.
While the cost of tidal energy may be similar to other massive energy products, such as Hinkley, its safety is much greater. Indeed, for long-term investment, the life span of a project such as the one I am suggesting to the Minister is double that of Hinkley at 120 years, with the turbines being replaced after 60 years. I know that long-term investment is needed, but I believe that our children will thank us for it, as they will have sustainable energy for generations to come. I honestly do believe that now is the time to make this investment. I am aware, as I am sure the Minister will be, that there is international interest in Strangford lough, with Canadian companies looking into this possibility. Now is the time for this House to show willingness to put investment and commitment where our mouth is, and to invest in long-term projects with a guaranteed return.
I want to pay special thanks to the Queen’s University biology station at Portaferry, which is much involved in this idea. I met it way back in the summer to discuss it. It has many pilot schemes for energising and taking advantage of the ebb and flow of the narrows in the water of Strangford lough. It has many ideas, but we keep coming back to the SeaGen pilot scheme of 2008. Its findings clearly show that the project is financially sustainable.
There is also interest in this matter from Minister Gordon Lyons at the Department for the Economy. He understands the issue and has been keen to move it forward, and his civil servants have been actively involved. There is some concern that when it comes to money from Westminster, Scotland and Wales seem to have had some advantage while Northern Ireland has not. There is now an opportunity to ensure that Strangford lough and its tidal wave energy are financially supported.
I know that if Strangford lough were eligible for the second round of tidal energy and tidal lagoons, the project would not be delivered in my time in this House, but we have to start somewhere and tonight is a good time to start. The longevity of the project would be a legacy, not of Jim Shannon because Jim Shannon does not count—
Jim Shannon
What does matter and what does count is the people of Strangford—my constituents. That is the point I want to make. The legacy will be for them—for all the households in Strangford and all the people across Northern Ireland—so it is very important. This will be inspired, perhaps, by a Government and a Minister who are determined to look at the long term and invest in clean, renewable energy that is as dependable as the sun rising and setting, and which can be planned for decades in advance. I said that at the beginning of the debate and I say it again.
To continue to ignore this potential would, I believe, be tantamount to ignoring our obligation to future generations, who will be repaying the billions of pounds we give for energy assistance this year alone—and we thank Government for that—and who would much prefer to pay off something that their children can benefit from. Now is the time, and I am asking the Minister to respond with a UK-wide, Government-guided and funded investment plan incorporating Strangford lough and other potential areas as a matter of urgency.
I extended this intervention to the Minister previously and, as he knows, I will do so again now: I invite him to come to Northern Ireland. He said he would endeavour to put that in his diary for this year, and I again invite him to come to Strangford. We will visit the Queen’s University Belfast biology station and meet some of the people there, and I hope they will convince him and help this debate progress from an Adjournment debate on 10 January 2023 to something more. Not only will that benefit us in Strangford; it will benefit everyone down the whole west coast of Scotland, England and Wales as well.
With that, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your time and look forward to hearing from the Minister. I thank Members for their interventions, and I look forward to delivering for the people of Strangford; they really are the best people in the whole world.
The Minister for Energy and Climate (Graham Stuart)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). As I look around the Chamber, I am taken back to that Westminster Hall debate to which he referred; it feels like the gang is back together. This is an important debate, and I am pleased to see that he continues to be a champion for his constituents on the subject. I also see colleagues who were at that debate, including the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who led it.
I will touch on energy support, which the hon. Gentleman referred to. After Putin’s barbarous invasion of Ukraine, we saw people’s energy bills soaring, and they were forced to turn their minds to the meter before turning up the thermostat in their homes. In that context, the Government were and are determined to do all they can to help the people of this country, including those in Northern Ireland.
In December, I was delighted to announce that all households in Northern Ireland would receive a single, one-off £600 payment to help with their energy bills. Payments will start this month. The funding has been provided to the energy suppliers to go out to those families. I hear the points that the hon. Gentleman made about the practicalities of that. In a market for which we are not normally responsible, we were determined to find a way to reach them, and we did that. I pay tribute to my officials who put in an astonishing amount of work to stand that up and get it going. That payment comes on top of the package of unprecedented assistance with energy bills that the UK Government have already provided, including the energy price guarantee, which has reduced the energy costs of every family, and the energy bills discount scheme, which has reduced them for every business in Northern Ireland as well.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted, we are here not just to think about the short term and this winter, but to look to next winter and all the winters to come, as we seek to build a secure energy supply that drives up growth, drives down bills and meets our net zero ambitions. The best way to do that is by investing in affordable, reliable, clean energy, because energy security and net zero go hand in hand.
The Government take their net zero commitment absolutely seriously. If we are to accelerate away from fossil fuels, rolling out renewable energy is fundamental. That is why, in last year’s British energy security strategy, we reaffirmed our commitment to renewables. That means making the absolute most of the opportunities that our geology and geography afford us to deploy transformative technologies, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted. Of course, tidal is an element of that. Tidal stream energy is a home-grown industry with considerable promise to deliver affordable, clean, secure energy for households and businesses across the country. I could not be more proud of the fact that we are leading the world in deploying offshore wind, which is another technology. Off the coast of my Beverley and Holderness constituency, there is the biggest wind farm in the world, joining the second, third and fourth largest windfarms in the world, with all of them generating energy from the high winds of the North sea.
Of course, with Britain being Britain, the weather can change from windy and sunny to still and cloudy in seconds. Even when that happens, we can still rely on the tides, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said. Tidal energy provides an opportunity to boost the resilience and diversity of our renewable energy system. It is an area where, with a raft of brilliant developers designing and building tidal stream devices in the UK, we currently lead the world. As he rightly said, let us not blow the opportunity that that provides us.
We have Europe’s foremost tidal and wave energy testing centre in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland: the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney. We also have new marine energy hubs developing across the country, from Morlais on Anglesey to the Perpetuus Tidal Energy Centre on the Isle of Wight in England. Thanks in large part to £175 million in innovation funding for wave and tidal power research provided by successive Governments, as of last August our waters were home to half the world’s total deployment. Thanks to the extensive support afforded by the renewables obligation mechanism, in 2018 we were able to build the largest tidal stream generating array in the world in the fast-moving waters of the Pentland firth.
The Government remain open to considering well-developed proposals for harnessing the tidal range energy in the bays and estuaries around our coastlines, including, as the hon. Gentleman said, up and down the west coast. That includes barrage schemes and other alternatives. Any such proposal would need to demonstrate strong evidence of value for money in the context of other low-carbon technologies, as well as details of its associated energy system benefits and environmental impact mitigation strategies, before the Government could take a view on its potential or on the funding models appropriate for exploration. Revised criteria for a well-developed proposal will be published in the energy national policy statement which is coming out very soon.
Jim Shannon
In the last portion of my contribution, I referred to a Canadian company—I understand the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is aware of it, too—which is keen to harness the tidal water movement of the narrows. I am a great believer that when we move forward, we can have partnerships between Government and independent companies to deliver that. Companies are in the business of making money and the Government are in the business of producing green energy, which I think they want to promote. Is that one of those things where the Minister could be instrumental in being positive and helpful?
Graham Stuart
That leads me naturally on to our system. What we try to do across all technologies, places and companies is to create an architecture that is fair, transparent and predictable—as much as that is possible. It therefore does not depend on me being sold on any particular company or solution, but allows, through decent mechanisms, the best to rise to the top. That is very much our aim.
Much of the success of tidal stream to date is down to contracts for difference, which the Government have produced and which I am delighted about. This is our flagship mechanism for supporting the cost-effective delivery of renewable energy, ensuring that the nation’s tidal stream innovators have the opportunity to bring down the costs of the technology and learn the lessons from being the first in the world to deploy it at scale. I am sure that Members were, like me, delighted that last year the Government established a ringfenced budget of £20 million for tidal stream developments in pot 2 of the fourth contracts for difference allocation round. This saw four tidal stream projects win contracts totalling 40 MW at a strike price of £178.54 per MWh. To put that into perspective, only 36 MW of tidal stream was deployed worldwide between 2010 and 2020. This is the first time that tidal stream power has been procured at this scale.
Mr Carmichael
I was beyond delighted. I am on the record as having congratulated the Government many times on the commitment in AR4. We are seeing not just public money going into tidal stream, but private finance, and that really is the proof of the pudding. What we need now, though—I think the Minister knows where I am going with this—is a commitment to continue that in AR5. He has seen already what is possible with that ringfenced pot, but we need to keep it going.
Graham Stuart
Further information—we released some information before Christmas—for AR5 will come out shortly ahead of the launch of AR5, which of course has now been moved on to an annual basis, giving further confidence, I hope, to the market.
The energy transition must involve each and every part of our United Kingdom. As an integral part of the UK, that of course means Northern Ireland where, energy being a devolved matter, contracts for difference do not actually operate. However, in the Northern Ireland energy strategy, Northern Ireland set out a path to net zero energy and to meet 70% of electricity consumption from a diverse mix of renewable sources by 2030. The Government are committed to supporting Northern Ireland to succeed in that. If we are to get it right, places like Strangford lough will be critical.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford and all those involved for their support in making the pilot project a success. Strangford lough is a world first: a commercial-scale tidal energy project that by September 2012 had produced 5 GWh of tidal power since its commissioning in 2008—equivalent to the annual power consumption of 1,500 households.
Strangford shows that tidal can work; it was a major demonstrator in that sense. It shows that it is safe, too: I am delighted that Strangford lough has had no major impact on marine life, for instance. That is why we have provided it with £5.2 million of funding, in addition to £500,000 from Northern Ireland Electricity under its Smart scheme. In 2011, the project qualified to benefit from the marine renewables deployment fund, after passing the UK Government’s operating performance criteria.
It is not just Strangford lough; we continue to invest in renewable energy across Northern Ireland. Through UK Research and Innovation, we have provided Artemis Technologies with £33 million from the Strength in Places fund to drive the decarbonisation of maritime transport. Last year, Wrightbus secured an £11.2 million investment from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to develop a low-cost hydrogen fuel cell technology and create a hydrogen centre of excellence—all part of a £54 million package.
In conclusion, it is clear that this Government are taking action on all elements of energy in Northern Ireland. We are bringing energy bills down right now, and we are harnessing the power of clean, secure, affordable energy to build an economy that is fit for the future. That includes a sound track record of supporting the tidal stream industry, where we are on the cusp of commercialisation. With excellent export potential, we are ready to lead the world, and I am confident that the tidal stream industry will continue to develop across every corner of the United Kingdom as we work together to bring green growth to each one of our countries.
In the seconds that remain, I want to go back to the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. One was about the tidal taskforce, which I am happy to discuss further with him. Having a taskforce for everything is not necessarily the right thing; I want to make sure that we have the right architecture. We will see what happens with the CfDs and make an announcement in due course, but assuming that we get the broad architecture right, given the state of tidal stream—I will leave leadership for the moment—I am hopeful for the future.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a visit. I would be delighted to accept, in due course—
Draft State Immunity Act 1978 (Remedial) Order 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft State Immunity Act 1978 (Remedial) Order 2022.
It is an honour to serve once again with you in the Chair, Mr Gray. This draft statutory instrument, which is subject to the procedure set out in schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998, was laid before Parliament on 7 September 2022. It will be made once it has been approved by both Houses. It responds to the declaration of incompatibility in a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
State immunity derives from the principle of the sovereign equality of states. The principle is enacted in the UK by the State Immunity Act 1978. The Act contains a number of exceptions, which recognise the distinction between a state’s actions of a sovereign character, such as making treaties, and its actions of a commercial nature, such as buying goods and services or employing some staff. [Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green should know that you do not walk in front of the Chair.
David Rutley
The State Immunity Act as drafted, however, removed from those general exceptions individuals employed by diplomatic missions and consular posts, and certain other employees. The draft remedial order will amend the 1978 Act, importantly, to allow a category of claimants to bring claims against their diplomatic mission or consular mission employers.
I note that the Government broadly agree with the views set out by Lord Sumption in his judgment in the Benkharbouche case, to the effect that as a general matter, purely domestic staff are unlikely to be in employment related to sovereign authority, but that dismissing an employee for reasons of state security would relate to sovereign authority. The remedial order will apply from the date of the Benkharbouche decision in the Supreme Court on 18 October 2017.
Four former employees of foreign diplomatic missions in the UK who were domestic workers have been pursuing cases against His Majesty’s Government in the European Court of Human Rights in relation to this matter. They allege that the 1978 Act prevented them from bringing employment claims against their employer states. One case was settled recently, one was dismissed by the Court, and His Majesty’s Government conceded the other two.
The European Court of Human Rights, in determining adequate redress, found fault with the Government for delaying a remedial order. We recognise that the delay has not been optimal. The Government, however, are aware of approximately 55 other claims against diplomatic missions in London working their way through the courts. Approving the order today will therefore allow such historical cases and future cases to be brought before an employment tribunal rather than against the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. That is why it is important for the order to be approved.
I thank the Joint Committee on Human Rights for both its reports on the issue. The Government responded to the first in September and, last month, we noted the contents of the second. I am grateful to the Joint Committee for recommending that Parliament approve the draft remedial order.
In conclusion, as I have set out, the intention of the draft order is to ensure that the UK’s legal obligations are in line with international law. It will ensure that claims can be brought against foreign states that employ certain staff in the UK, and that future risk for His Majesty’s Government is mitigated. I commend the order to the Committee.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, to discuss this important draft remedial order. I hope not to detain the Committee for long, so soon after recess. The Opposition will support the order.
The purpose of the draft instrument is relatively simple in that it makes targeted amendments to the 1978 Act to ensure that it is fully compatible with our domestic human rights legislation. As the Minister set out, the need for the remedial order follows the significant Supreme Court judgment in the confined employment cases of Benkharbouche and Janah. When coming to their judgment in 2017, the Supreme Court judges found the Act to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights as it grants greater immunity to foreign states than is actually required by customary international law.
In particular, the Supreme Court found that the Act violated article 6 of the European convention on human rights—the right to a fair trial—by preventing access for certain categories of employees, such as domestic workers, to bring a claim against their employer. The Court also found the Act to be in breach of article 14—prohibition of discrimination—as it unjustifiably denies access to bringing a claim based on a claimant’s nationality. The remedial order seeks to correct those two incompatibilities by making targeted changes to the 1978 Act to ensure that it is fully compatible with our human rights legislation.
Before we discuss how the order seeks to ensure that compatibility, I will summarise the context of the two Supreme Court cases that made it necessary. Both the Benkharbouche and Janah cases relate to employment claims brought by domestic workers against foreign embassies in London. The Janah case involves a Moroccan national who was employed as a domestic worker at the Libyan embassy in London. After getting into a dispute with her employers, Janah made a claim before the employment tribunal for various breaches of employment law, including the failure to pay her the national minimum wage and breaches of the working time regulations.
The Benkharbouche case is similar. Again, it involves a Moroccan national, who was employed as a domestic worker at the Sudanese embassy in London. Like Janah, she made a claim before the employment tribunal for various breaches of employment law, including unfair dismissal and failure to pay her wages. When both claims were considered by the lower courts, the majority of the claims were dismissed on the basis that the 1978 Act granted their employers automatic immunity as a result of being diplomatic missions. The lower courts also dismissed Ms Janah’s claims on the basis that she was neither a UK national nor habitually resident in the UK at the time that she made her claim before the employment tribunal.
When both cases came to be considered by the Supreme Court, it unanimously found that the 1978 Act was unlawful as it prevented all employees of foreign embassies bringing claims for compensation against employer states, regardless of the nature of the employees’ work. In applying diplomatic immunity so widely, the Court found that the Act went far beyond the requirements of international law, which generally requires immunity only in cases where the employee exercises sovereign authority or some special characteristic is present.
In the case of Ms Janah, the Supreme Court also found that preventing claimants from bringing claims on the grounds that they were neither British nationals nor permanently resident in the UK was discriminatory.
To rectify those issues, the remedial order will amend the 1978 Act in two ways. First, it will limit the automatic immunity afforded to diplomatic missions to employment claims brought by employees such as Ms Janah and Ms Benkharbouche and, in doing so, ensure that a new class of employee can bring claims against an embassy. The Minister helpfully pointed out that there are 55 cases in train, waiting for the remedial order to be passed.
Secondly, the remedial order makes it easier for employment claims to be brought by employees who were neither a permanent resident nor a UK national at the time that they brought their claim, as in the case of Ms Janah.
The Opposition warmly welcome both these changes, and we will not seek to divide the Committee. As Emily Gibbs of the Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit said following the Supreme Court judgment:
“These appeals are hugely significant. Overseas domestic workers working in embassies are exceptionally vulnerable to exploitation and abuse including trafficking. We are delighted that the Supreme Court has recognised that the UK’s State Immunity Act is too generous to foreign states, preventing employees, including many vulnerable workers, accessing justice and going well beyond the requirements of international law.”
That goes to the heart of the matter. Although we all recognise the need for some diplomatic immunity, it should not—and need not—be at the expense of hard-working and often hugely vulnerable domestic workers.
The Opposition hope that the order will go some way to redress that delicate legal balance and ensure that domestic embassy workers are afforded the same legal protections and have access to the same employment rights as any other workers across the UK.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I strongly support the order, which rectifies a gross injustice affecting some of the most vulnerable people working in our society. I have a question for the Minister about the cost of access to justice. As we have heard, some of the people affected are not UK nationals; they will now have access to an employment tribunal. What will the situation be regarding their costs, both at the outset in bringing any such action, and in terms of the recovery of any costs, bearing in mind that most of these people are probably on extremely low wages?
David Rutley
I am grateful to the hon. Members who have contributed to the discussion, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate for his very reasonable understanding of the situation, as always, and his broad support for the action we are taking. As he highlighted, the order will help to address the incompatibilities. He set out the context in his speech incredibly well, for which I am grateful.
My neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Congleton raised an important point about access to justice. I will get in touch with Ministers at the Ministry of Justice to clarify that point and get back to her in writing.
I am grateful for the Committee’s support and for the support of the Joint Committee. As I highlighted, further delay in bringing the remedial order into force increases the risk of future successful claims against the Government. For the reasons we have all set out today, I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lifeboat Services: Search and Rescue
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
I am from Yorkshire, so I consider it oppressively hot in here; if people wish to remove their jackets, they are free to do so. I call Kevin Foster to move the motion.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the contribution of lifeboat services to search and rescue.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am grateful to my colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee for granting me this debate, and of course to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who did the legwork on the application to secure it.
It is worth giving some context at the debate’s start. Search and rescue provision in the UK is delivered through an amalgam of Government Departments, emergency services and various SAR charities and voluntary organisations. UK SAR is arranged through the UK SAR Strategic Committee, an interdepartmental body chaired by the Department for Transport, hence our being joined by a DFT Minister and his shadow. His Majesty’s Coastguard provides a response and co-ordination service for air and sea-based SAR in the UK. HM Coastguard has existed since 1822, and of course celebrated its bicentenary last year. The coastguard co-ordinates air and sea-based SAR through its nine operation centres around the UK. They are in Shetland, Aberdeen, Humber, Dover, Fareham, Falmouth, Milford Haven, Holyhead, Belfast and Stornoway. In addition, the London coastguard, which is co-located with the Port of London authority, looks after SAR on the River Thames. HM Coastguard has its national maritime operations centre in Fareham in Hampshire.
Lifeboats are not the only part of SAR at sea; many organisations, including the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, commercial vessels in the vicinity of an incident and HM Coastguard’s helicopters, play their part, but in this debate, I will focus on the lifeboat service. The classic image of the lifeboat service is one of heroism, and of its crews fighting through rough seas to save lives. The courage of those involved, and their commitment to saving those in peril on the sea, are the anchor that holds the crew together during a rescue mission while, in the words of the famous hymn,
“the breakers roar and the reef is near”.
No debate such as this should pass without mention of how that legendary bravery was demonstrated on 19 December 1981, when the Penlee lifeboat headed out into atrocious conditions to try to save the lives of eight people in peril. Tragically, all eight lifeboat crew were lost that night. It was the last time the Royal National Lifeboat Institution lost a whole crew in one incident—a record that I am sure we hope will stand for many years to come.
It is of course the RNLI that most people will think of when they hear a reference to lifeboats. It was founded as the Royal National Institution for the Preservation of Lives and Property from Shipwreck in 1824. In 1854, it changed its name to what we know it as today. Its main base is in Poole, Dorset. It has 238 lifeboat stations, and an active fleet of 431 lifeboats, which range from large, all-weather lifeboats to smaller inshore vessels.
The impact of the RNLI’s work cannot be overestimated. Its operations have saved over 143,900 lives since 1824, and it is not just men who have been the heroes: Grace Darling became one of the Victorian era’s most celebrated heroines when, on 7 September 1838, she risked her life to rescue the stranded survivors of the wrecked steamship Forfarshire. Today, around 95% of the RNLI team are volunteers; they are around 5,600 crew members, 3,700 shore crew, including station management, 82 lifeguards, and 23,000 fundraisers. The scale of the RNLI’s contribution to search and rescue is immense. In 2021 alone, there were 8,868 lifeboat launches, 84 of which were in at least force 8 conditions, and 1,022 crew assemblies—a total of 9,890 taskings. That resulted in 12,903 people being aided, and 296 lives being saved.
The RNLI’s work is about not just reacting when things go wrong, but reducing the need for search and rescue by educating and advising on dangers. RNLI water safety teams reached more than 27 million people in 2021 with essential messaging, undoubtedly saving more lives and keeping families together.
We should bear in mind that lifeboat services are not just about the RNLI—a subject that is close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. In addition to the RNLI, a number of voluntary organisations provide independent lifeboats for the purpose of saving lives on the water. There are more than 50 independent lifeboat organisations around the UK, and independent lifeboats operate in coastal areas—for example, the Hope Cove lifeboat in south Devon—and on inland waters, rivers and lakes, while some organisations operate independent lifeboats alongside other search and rescue services, such as mud rescue. The majority of those independent lifeboats are equipped, maintained and operated in accordance with the rescue boat code.
Independent lifeboat organisations vary greatly in size, crew numbers, rescue numbers and types of rescue boat used. Crews range from the 12 crew members at Port William Inshore Rescue Service in Dumfries and Galloway to the around 260 crew members at Community Rescue Service, which operates across Northern Ireland; and call-outs range from the five call-outs in 2021 for the Sea Palling independent lifeboat in Norfolk to more than 120 for the Hamble lifeboat in Hampshire. The rescue boats involved range from small RIBs—rigid inflatable boats—to large all-weather lifeboats, which are comparable to the boats that many people associate with the RNLI.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I thank him for doing so. He is making important points about independent lifeboats, but also about the support services. We have independent lifeboats at Freshwater, Sandown and Shanklin in the Isle of Wight, which do wonderful work, on top of the RNLI stations at Bembridge, Cowes and Yarmouth. Not only that, but our inshore lifeboat centre in East Cowes keeps half the nation’s fleet of RNLI boats in good condition. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to those services?
Kevin Foster
I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend list the amazing support that the Isle of Wight provides. It does not just save lives and help those in peril on the sea around the Island—as he knows, some of those waters famously present obstacles and risks to passing shipping, and it is worth paying tribute to the many Islanders over the years who have put their life at risk trying to save those in peril near the Island—but makes a wider contribution to the service. As he says, lifeboat services are not just about the team who go out on the boat; they are about the support network that enables the lifeboat teams to go out. It is great to be able to pay it the tribute that he just did.
Independent lifeboats are not a new invention, and the first independent lifeboat station was formed in Formby, Lancashire, in 1776. Although many independent lifeboat stations were RNLI stations when they were established, others have been set up in response to specific incidents. For example—I see colleagues from Northern Ireland in the Chamber—Foyle Search and Rescue was set up by local people in 1993 in response to the alarmingly high number of drownings in the River Foyle, 30 in 18 months. It has since adopted a role in suicide prevention and supporting families in the city more widely. That shows the diversity in the types of work that such organisations can take on, and the contribution that such services can make.
It is right that we remember the contribution that those organisations make, and how their work is supported by the National Independent Lifeboat Association, a new charity founded last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. All independent lifeboats in Great Britain and Northern Ireland were invited to join the association, and it has 30 members from England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Jersey.
During my preparations for the debate, it was made clear to me that the RNLI is proud of its independence and the fact that it can operate free from requirements of the type that Government funding would bring. I was advised of that in the knowledge that such debates can sometimes involve the subject of whether the service offered by the RNLI should be publicly funded, rather than our having the current funding arrangements, which are based on voluntary giving.
It might seem strange to some, but this service is not lobbying for Government funding. That position recalls the fact that, a decade ago, a former Prime Minister described his vision of creating a big society—a concept in which individuals come together to tackle an issue or make a difference, rather than the state setting up structures to intervene that might often be less effective or efficient. There are often debates about how that concept can be defined in real life, but in many ways lifeboat services reflect that idea, from the crews who volunteer their time to train, and who are ready to answer the call of duty, to fundraising teams in communities who raise the resources needed to support operations, to the many community members who do their bit by simply dropping a few coins into a collection box when they buy a pint, visit the local shop or walk past one of the many collection boxes across coastal communities. Also included are people who, when thinking about the legacy they want to leave, tell their solicitor to include the lifeboat service in their will. This shows how society comes together to help others in need, and to provide a unique service that we can all benefit from, but hope never to need.
Those who regularly hear me speak know that I will not miss an opportunity to highlight the work being done in south Devon, and I will start with the Torbay RNLI lifeboat station. It was established in Brixham in 1866 and has occupied the same premises since 1872. It was established after a fleet of merchant ships were caught in hurricane-strength winds in Torbay in January 1866, causing the loss of about 40 ships and nearly 100 lives. Today, the lifeboat station has 35 crew members, including those who are shore-based. The station operates two lifeboats that reflect the diversity of the rescues that the station may be called on to perform: a Severn class all-weather lifeboat and a D-class inshore lifeboat. The crew members are volunteers who mostly have day jobs.
In 2022, Torbay RNLI lifeboat station responded to 111 shouts. The station is supported by the Torbay Lifeboat Fundraisers, who work throughout the year to raise the funds needed to support the lifeboat. The group has over 200 volunteer members, and it organises a range of events and activities to raise money. I thank everyone in Torbay who supports them; the crew would not be ready to save lives without their contribution.
I pay tribute to the team at the National Coastwatch Institution in Torbay, who also play a part in search and rescue operations in south Devon. NCI watchkeepers, who are volunteers, provide eyes and ears along the coast, monitoring radio channels and providing a listening watch in poor visibility. When people get into trouble, NCI watchkeepers can alert His Majesty’s Coastguard and direct the appropriate rescue teams, including lifeboats, to the casualty. The NCI station at Torbay is one of over 50 such stations located around England and Wales. Located at Daddyhole plain, it is the first purpose-built NCI watch station. In January 2012, the station was given declared facility status, meaning that the station was not only fully operational, but fully recognised in search and rescue operations as having the same status as RNLI lifeboat stations. That shows the benefit of partnerships between organisations that save lives.
Lifeboats are as vital to search and rescue operations today as they were in the era when horses drew the boat to the launching point and the crew pulled on the oars against the high sea to reach a vessel in distress. Direct funding is not sought, but I am interested to learn from the Minister how he sees the future for our lifeboats, and on a couple of other points.
First, some independent lifeboats are not fully declared HM Coastguard rescue facilities, often because of the complex process that must be undertaken to become such a facility. Does the Minister see an opportunity to simplify the process, without compromising standards? Secondly, independent lifeboats are not represented on the UK SAR operators group, but hope to join the group later this year. Will he provide an update on that? Finally, how does he see the work of lifeboats and their contribution to search and rescue fitting into wider efforts to improve safety at sea?
The debate is a good opportunity to highlight the contribution of lifeboat services to UK search and rescue. As we speak, crews across the UK stand ready to answer the call to save those in peril; they are ready to face whatever dangers that may bring. They are some of the best of our nation, and I end with a simple message to them: thank you.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
There appear to be eight people seeking to catch my eye. I want to get to the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 10.30 am, so there are 45 minutes to be divided by eight speakers. I will not introduce a formal time limit at this stage, but please could people be mindful of others, and stick to about five minutes? If necessary, I will introduce a time limit. I call Jamie Stone.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on a characteristically erudite and well-informed speech. I first want to mention the RNLI in my constituency. I have sailed out on the Thurso lifeboat—and did not sink it. The waters in the north of Scotland are treacherous, and subject to very strong tides, changeable winds and fog. My grandfather, alas, put his warship HMS Goldfinch on the rocks in 1915 in a very thick fog, and was not given command of a destroyer again. That proves how treacherous the waters are.
The work that the lifeboat crews undertake is varied. The hon. Member for Torbay touched on some of the big, dramatic stuff, but we have little stuff as well. For instance, in August the Wick lifeboat—the Wick station was put there in 1848—was called out to rescue a lady on a paddleboard. She had sailed out from the beach at Reiss, north of Wick, and, thank goodness, was rescued. It was a small rescue, but so important to the family, and to the people of Caithness.
More locally, we have the East Sutherland Rescue Association, which I have often spoken about to the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall). It is crewed by volunteers and is based at Dornoch in the Dornoch firth. It was founded in 1981 to cover a lack of facilities to rescue people, and it uses Dornoch or Embo beaches. It was called out not long ago to rescue some sheep off the village of Nigg, which got stranded as the tide rose. That might seem semi-laughable, but would a crofter or a farmer want to see their animals slowly drown? No, I do not think so. That shows how much the crews do for the local area.
I want to praise Lord Cadogan, who has given substantial amounts of money to the East Sutherland Rescue Association. He owns land in Sutherland and, out of the goodness of his heart, has seen to it that it is adequately financed and was able to build a new facility, so that it could maintain and launch its boats. I want to put that on the record in Hansard, because I am grateful to him, as is the whole community. I have touched on the treacherous waters of the north of Scotland, and the splendid work done by the RNLI and its volunteers, and how close it is to all our hearts. The hon. Member for Torbay thanked them, and I thank them, too. They do fantastic work.
Thinking ahead, as global warming carries on, and as the ice pack in the Arctic gets thinner and retreats, the north-east route from Europe, round the top of Norway and along the north coast of Russia, to markets in the far east, which we can use in the summer months, becomes more and more important. Scapa Flow is in the constituency of my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). Before the first world war, Scapa Flow was set up as a natural anchorage for the grand fleet, so that it could defend the United Kingdom. I believe that there is scope for Scapa Flow to once again feature as a shelter anchorage for vessels about to undertake the long journey over the north of the continents of Europe and Asia.
My point is this: in future we will need lifeboat services just as much as we need them today. They are here for a very long time to come—here for keeps. Man can do many things, but man cannot alter the weather and or change dangerous circumstances, so this is a blatant plug. Lifeboat services have long done a great job. They are doing a great job now, and there is a great future for them. We must support them and back them to the hilt.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on securing this important debate, and I thank him for the opportunity to highlight the invaluable contribution of the volunteer crews of Conwy and Llandudno RNLI lifeboat stations in my constituency of Aberconwy.
We have become accustomed to seeing on the news images of lifeboat crews along the channel coast bringing asylum seekers and refugees safely ashore. Given that they volunteer their time to fulfil the RNLI’s mission of saving lives at sea, it is right that these crews are commended for their service and courage. However, as a supporter of the RNLI, I share the concern of the crew I have spoken to that the constant images from the channel overshadow the huge range of search and rescue call-outs or “shouts”, as they are known to the crews, with which lifeboat volunteers are tasked. These include rescuing paddleboarders and swimmers in distress, searching for divers, assisting broken-down vessels and undertaking lengthy searches, sometimes lasting days, for missing boats. Maintaining the operational capability to safely conduct the myriad requirements involves lengthy and intensive training, not just for the crews at sea but for the shore crews, whose service is indispensable to lifeboat operations.
The professionalism and commitment of our lifeboat crews was exemplified in January 2021, when the crews from Conwy and Llandudno joined the search for the Nicola Faith, a fishing vessel that was lost with all hands, and which had set sail from Conwy. For over 48 hours, the crew of Llandudno’s all-weather Shannon-class lifeboat, the Williams F Yates, searched hundreds of square miles, often in freezing conditions. The entire station was mobilised in support of the search, with boat crews swapping once the inevitable fatigue set in and the lifeboat needed to be refuelled ashore. The crewmen and women were nearly all volunteers, with many of them forgoing paid work. The whole community rallied in support, with members of the public bringing cakes and other refreshments to the station to keep up morale.
Tragically, the Nicola Faith could not be located, but the search for its crew demonstrated another key point: lifeboat stations are the focus of a team effort that involves communities, fundraising committees, shore crew, the boat crew and their families. The work of the shore crews, and the intense training they undertake, is often overlooked but it is indispensable to lifeboat operations. No lifeboat launch, whether of a D-class inshore lifeboat or an all-weather lifeboat, would be possible without a highly trained shore crew, often working in adverse conditions. When Shannon lifeboats are launched from a launch-and-recovery system, a team of between eight and 12 people is required to launch and recover the boat safely.
I want to recognise the enormous sense of pride that volunteers have in their commitment to saving lives at sea. In fact, just before Christmas, Conwy lifeboat station’s volunteer crew member Paddy Byrnes was recognised for 30 years of service. There are also four men—Keith Charlton, Nigel Forest, Robin Holden and David Roberts—who recently reached an impressive 40 years of service at Llandudno station, and four more are approaching this milestone. I would like to congratulate those crewmen and thank them for their decades of invaluable and selfless service—a tremendous achievement that should not go unnoticed.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
As the hon. Member is congratulating his own local personnel, will he join me in congratulating the management team, the fundraisers and all those associated with the Portrush lifeboat station, which celebrates 100 years next year? In the same year, the RNLI will celebrate 200 years. This is an excellent achievement by many lifeboat associations across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Robin Millar
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I completely endorse what he says. In fact, I would like to recognise the work of the fundraising committee chairman in my own constituency, who has persevered in the work, despite facing personal challenges.
Finally, it is vital that we extend our appreciation to the families of lifeboat crews. As mentioned, crew members can spend significant time away from their families when training and attending “shouts”. When their pagers sound on stormy nights—in the winter, in the dark—it is difficult to appreciate the apprehension felt by loved ones who remain ashore about the safety of the crew members at sea. Without the support of families and loved ones, lifeboat stations simply could not operate. To the families of the crews of Llandudno and Conwy lifeboat stations, thank you.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Davies, for chairing the debate and for giving me a chance to participate. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for setting the scene so well, and hon. Members for contributing to the debate.
Lifeboats and their services are imperative for safety in coastal communities, which is the key issue for me. The hon. Member for Torbay represents a coastal area that is similar to my constituency of Strangford, and we follow each other in debates more often than not—either him before me or me before him. The neighbouring constituency of North Down also has coastal areas with lifeboats, and people rely on the local stations.
It is great to be here to give them the praise they truly deserve and to thank them for their work and efforts.
Thousands of people along the coastline of Northern Ireland depend on the services of the RNLI for their protection and safety. During the summer, thousands of families and young people partake in coastal sports such as sailing, surfing and pier jumping. I used to do that myself off Ballywalter harbour, although that is not a very wise thing to do—always ensure the tide is in or there is big trouble. In addition, people go out in canoes and boats to fish, including from the fishing village of Portavogie. There are caravan parks at Millisle and my home village of Ballywalter, where I was brought up. They lie very close to where I live on the edge of Strangford lough. I am aware of the sheer number of water sports undertaken in this area.
The RNLI charity provides a 24-hour search and rescue service around the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Across the entire UK, there are 238 lifeboat stations, 46 of them in Northern Ireland. There are also 240 lifeguard units on beaches, which gives an idea of the magnitude of the issue. I found this figure incredible: since the RNLI was founded in 1824, its lifeboat crews have saved more than 142,700 lives. That is an enormous figure.
We are fortunate to have a lifeboat station in Portaferry in my constituency, and I visited the station just before the summer. Portaferry is one of seven RNLI lifeboat stations operating a lifeboat funded by viewers of the BBC TV programme “Blue Peter”. Some of us can cast our minds back to that, although others cannot go back that far. The station was established due to increased pleasure boating in Strangford lough, after Cloughey lifeboat station closed. Most recently, in November, the Portaferry lifeboat station came to the aid of two kayakers who got into difficulty near St Patrick’s rock in Strangford lough, and who faced weather conditions of wind force 8 to 10. Since the station opened in 1980, there have been 850 launches, rescuing 600 people and saving the lives of 100 people. That is just my lifeboat station in Portaferry. Thank you to all lifeboat crews, past and present, for their commitment.
Last year, I attended the parliamentary launch of the National Independent Lifeboat Association. I think the hon. Member for Torbay sponsored that event. It is important to pay thanks to those independent lifeguards and life-saving organisations who risk their lives in dangerous seas to help save others.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Does the hon. Gentleman, like me, welcome the representation provided by the National Independent Lifeboat Association for smaller lifeboat operators, which might otherwise be overlooked?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do. We have all said how much we appreciate that. The hon. Member for Torbay said that in his introduction. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) will recognise the independent ones in his contribution. I am thinking of the Foyle rescue team, about which we have spoken. We understand the commitment that those volunteers give. When I visited Portaferry before the summer, I was greatly impressed by their commitment and by the fact that they were there every time they were needed.
There are 46 independent lifeboat organisations that operate along the coastline and on inland waterways across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Those independent lifeboats are run primarily, if not entirely, by volunteers, and funded by local donations. The invaluable service they provide has saved the lives of so many and, in conjunction with the RNLI, they continue with those dedicated efforts day in and day out to save people. They are an asset to our communities. We would be completely lost without them, and many lives would sadly be lost as well. I am not the only who was moved by adverts on TV for RNLI showing a lady leave her house over Christmas to go and save people. We see how important these crews are when we recognise what they do.
To conclude, there are many ways in which we can support institutions such as the RNLI. It is possible to become a volunteer or a member, and even train to become assistance personnel. There are many things that people can do, including fundraising and donating money to ensure the RNLI staff have the best equipment available to fulfil their duties and be able to perform with the correct number of staff.
I sincerely thank the RNLI Portaferry team for all their dedication and work in my constituency. I also thank the lifeboat teams across Northern Ireland and the whole of the UK for the work they do, as our coastal communities would literally be lost without them. I live in a coastal community and understand what it means to have the RNLI, and I thank them very much.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on securing today’s important debate. The constituency that I represent, Moray, is proud and privileged to have both an RNLI facility at Buckie and an independent lifeboat support, the Moray Inshore Rescue Organisation, at Findhorn. I shall touch on both in today’s debate.
Let me begin, as others have, by paying tribute to the remarkable work of our search and rescue services in Scotland. As others have said, across our British coastline, the RNLI and its army of volunteers have served our great nation since 1824. It is a charity that is close to my heart and the hearts of many of my constituents in Moray. Being mainly staffed by volunteers, the RNLI relies heavily on the good will of British people to fund its rescue services. Thanks to the efforts and generosity of people across the country, there are over 230 operational lifeboat stations, which respond on average to 24 call-outs every day. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, that support has saved over 143,000 lives since the RNLI’s inception.
Mr Gregory Campbell
Does the hon. Member agree that one of the best ways we can demonstrate our support is, as he is doing, to maximise and highlight the issue, including in the local media, and to supply all independent and RNLI lifeboats with the best possible equipment for saving lives?
Douglas Ross
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. There is a very good publicity system around the RNLI in Buckie. In fact, the sub-editor of the local paper is a member of the RNLI at Buckie, which always gets good front-page coverage in the Banffshire Advertiser and other papers. The point on equipment is well made, and the Minister will have heard it.
The coastal communities that I represent across Moray simply could not imagine not having the support of the brave men and women who dedicate their lives to rescuing those in peril at sea. The RNLI and our independent lifeboats across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom deserve our full support, and it is vital and fitting that we have a platform in Parliament today to give them that recognition.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Member’s constituency faces mine across the Moray firth, which is named after his constituency, but it really should be named after mine—but that is not the point. In an emergency, it is a fact that the lifeboats in the hon. Member’s constituency can, if necessary, go out in the Moray firth and help out the communities in my constituency. I highlight the inter- connected nature of the service all over Scotland and the United Kingdom.
Douglas Ross
I agree with almost everything the hon. Gentleman said, but calling it the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross firth, rather than the Moray firth, might be a bit long-winded for some—but his points are absolutely right.
Let me focus on Moray and Buckie. Lifeboats have been launching into the waters of the Moray firth from Buckie for over 145 years, and crews and volunteers there have rightly been honoured with numerous awards. I have mentioned the late, great Adam Robertson in this Chamber in the past. He was a Moray Council employee with whom I worked closely in my time as a Moray councillor, but he dedicated his voluntary work throughout his life to RNLI Buckie, and his family has continued that trend since his sad death. Most recently, Anne Scott, RNLI Buckie’s lifeboat operations manager, received a special award that recognised her 20 years of professional service. Anne retired from the RNLI in 2021, and immediately after retirement became a volunteer. That shows the dedication of those who support our lifeboat services. It is absolutely right that Anne was given that award. When Anne received the award, RNLI Buckie’s Davie Grant said:
“We call Anne the lady who launches”
because she “hits the big button” as the lifeboats speed out to save people. Pillars such as Anne and Adam demonstrate not only the timeless contribution of the RNLI to rescue services and the support given by those volunteers, but the overwhelming contribution of lifeboat services to our local coastal communities.
Let me quickly move on to independent lifeboat services. Last year, I was honoured and delighted to support my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) in his launch of the National Independent Lifeboat Association, which is a new charity that will assist the UK’s independent lifeboats in ensuring the preservation of life on the water. I am proud that one of its founding members is the Moray Inshore Rescue Organisation, which is in my constituency. Based at Findhorn, it is, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, one of 46 established independent lifeboat services manned by unpaid volunteers, and does not receive any funding from the RNLI. First formed in July 2005, it is a proud recipient of the Queen’s award for voluntary service and does outstanding work from its base at Findhorn.
At the launch, MIRO’s chairman, John Low, said:
“We are a small organisation working locally with larger organisations, such as UK Coastguard, RNLI, police and fire services, to provide vital lifesaving services. It makes sense to join the new National Independent Lifeboat Association to collaborate and share practice with colleagues in similar small organisations around the country. We also hope that in the future there will be financial benefits such as accessing funding and services such as insurance and training.”
Those are important, which is why MIRO and others have joined the collaborative approach suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. It is right that we have the opportunity in Parliament today to highlight that and, as others have done, to thank both those in the RNLI and our independent lifeboat services for the amazing work they do, day in, day out.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am delighted to take part in this debate for the second year in a row. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend and neighbour, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), for securing this debate. We are of one heart and one mind when it comes to our coastline and making sure that we protect all those who are on the coastline or at sea, as well as supporting and promoting the important work that our UK search and rescue organisations do across the country.
I am always surprised that we call this a debate, because it is not really a debate. It is a moment for us to congratulate, recognise and thank those who put themselves in harm’s way to save others, to look after them and to promote the important work that, across the country, is often overlooked. I declare my interest, as I am the founder of the National Independent Lifeboat Association, which many Members have kindly mentioned.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work in setting up the charity. I wish to inform him that my own independent lifeboat association in Ferryside will be joining the organisation soon. I also take the opportunity to thank it for all the work they undertake in the Carmarthen bay area.
Anthony Mangnall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is particularly welcome news that his independent lifeboat is joining the organisation. As has been said, there are more than 50 independent lifeboat stations and 30 have joined the association. We would like it to be a full complement, so that every independent lifeboat station across the country has the recognition that it needs. Hon. Members across the Chamber have made a point about the important work of the RNLI. It is essential that we recognise the important apolitical nature of the RNLI and the fact that it does not ask for Government funding. The hundreds of RNLI lifeboat stations do fantastic work by raising their own money and through bequests, as well as by working with volunteers, who do an extraordinary job. The tales of their heroism are what make many of our coastal communities aware of the work of those lifeboat stations, which are part of the fabric of our community.
We are aware of the scale of UK search and rescue, which covers 2 million square miles of air, land and sea of and brings together multiple Government Departments. It brings together air ambulances, the National Coastwatch Institution, the RNLI and NILA. In my constituency, I am fortunate to have Torbay RNLI station, which is based in Brixham, Dart RNLI, which is in Dartmouth, and Salcombe RNLI which, unsurprisingly, is in Salcombe. The three stations cover more than 80 miles of coastline and have saved countless lives over the years.
The RNLI’s fantastic model has worked since 1824, saving an estimated 143,000 lives. Its work is unbelievably essential and, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, it will only increase over the coming years. We need to ensure that that model is recognised, supported and promoted wherever we go. We also have to be extremely clear that volunteers often work day jobs as well and that their employers need to be thanked for allowing them to take on the work.
I came to the position of founder of NILA because I have an independent lifeboat station in my constituency, in Hope Cove. Far from trying to compete with the RNLI, it works in co-operation with it; they work together to help people in danger at sea. It became clear to me that many of the independent lifeboat stations were not getting the attention or awareness that other UK search and rescue organisations to which people were donating were attracting, and that we should try and do something to promote them.
The result was that we formed NILA by contacting the 50 independent lifeboat stations and having a conversation about how we could secure greater recognition for their work and ensure that we were not taking away any funding abilities from them. Each independent lifeboat station is still self-funded, but we are able to ensure that they have access to the rescue boat code, the Department for Transport, the Home Office if necessary, best practices, and training procedures; they can also buy equipment collectively if necessary.
The whole purpose was not to hurt or harm those services, but to make their operations easier. I am really pleased to say that, since we had the idea, we have managed to create it. We have had the association registered with the Charity Commission. It has been in regular conversations with the Department for Transport, which has given it recognition. It has a chairman, Neil Dalton, and a vice chairman, Sean McCarry. The secretary is Wayne Monks and the treasurer is David Harvey. Together, they are creating the management structure that is going to be able to deliver for the independent lifeboat stations, not just now, but in future years, and to protect those independent lifeboat stations that do such fantastic work.
I will explain what we are asking for and what we would like to hear from the Minister. The first thing we ask for, as has been mentioned, is recognition through the rescue boat code. We understand that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is going through the process of reviewing the rescue boat code, so we would like to ask whether it can engage with independent lifeboats to ensure that, when the rescue boat code is revamped and rewritten, that is done so in conjunction with independent lifeboats and that they are using it to make sure it is most effective.
Secondly, we would like some clarification over VAT relief and fuel duty. I know that there is guidance out there. It is not simple; it needs to be simplified for the RNLI and independent lifeboats. The third thing is official recognition for NILA. We are waiting—the application has gone in through UK search and rescue. I would be grateful for an update on how quickly that will happen. The fourth point—I have got two more points and then I will sit down—is about support for the campaign to promote independent lifeboats and raise public awareness. There is continued support from MCA for NILA to join UKSAR’s operators group. Lastly, I call for the reintroduction of the rescue boat grant fund, which is specifically for the independents. A £5 million fund was launched. It finished in 2020. That fund was essential in helping those independent lifeboats. It was not a huge amount of money, but it made all the difference to those independent lifeboat stations.
I will end with this. We are very lucky across our coastal communities and in our inshore areas. We owe those people a debt of gratitude and of thanks. I hope we can hold an annual event in Parliament to promote the work of the RNLI and NILA.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for securing this terribly important debate.
One of the first things I did when I moved to my constituency of Clacton many years ago was to join the local lifeboat service at Walton-on-the-Naze as a volunteer. I had this theory—probably a mistaken one—that, as a keen yachtsman and a user of water all my life, it would be nice to see friends when I got into trouble.
There is no doubt in this Chamber that the contribution of the RNLI is great, and the people at Clacton and Walton-on-the-Naze lifeboat stations are an amazing bunch of people, who deserve all the support we can give them. However, sadly, a young man named Sujal Sahu lost his life in Clacton this summer when visiting my constituency. The RNLI was brilliant in its efforts and it must not be let down. The service in Walton-on-the-Naze, in my patch, is reducing at the moment; the boat is being changed. The resources are being spread out across the constituency, but the service needs further support to help prevent loss of life.
That brings me to my main point, which is about prevention. As an avid yachtsman—I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on water safety—it is abundantly clear that we must educate people on the dangers of water. There are two piers in my constituency: Clacton pier and Walton pier. Near these obstructions on the beach are sand scoops—areas where the tidal current rushes past faster. People who come to the coast and do not know about coastal dangers can walk into such areas and find themselves, on a wonderful, hot summer’s day, suddenly in a very dangerous situation indeed; the sand beneath their feet has gone, the tide is running, and if they do not know how to swim or how to behave in water, they are at incredible risk.
In the summer, I held a water safety event—I invited schools to the beach so that pupils could learn how to behave safely around potentially dangerous water—but the issue prevails all year round; we heard about the recent sad case in Solihull. If we truly wish to support those who get into danger around water, we must support water safety education.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for securing the debate, not least because it gives me the opportunity to wax lyrical about my constituency, and its proud record of supporting the search and rescue services. My constituency is right on the border with Titchfield, where the search and rescue HQ, which he mentioned earlier, is located. The helicopters take off from my very own Gosport constituency—at Daedalus, where the Maritime and Coastguard Agency does a lot of its training.
Today I will talk specifically about the wonderful Gosport and Fareham Inshore Rescue Service—an independent lifeboat and inshore rescue service that was founded in 1969, so has been around for a really long time. It is a declared facility to the UK coastguard, providing emergency lifeboat cover to the eastern Solent and Portsmouth harbour. Those who know the area will know that that is an incredibly busy stretch of water—certainly the busiest on the south coast, if not one of the busiest in the UK. There are Navy vessels coming out of Portsmouth, cruise ships and freighters coming out of Southampton, a significant number of yachts, personal water craft, dinghies, and a whole range of stand up paddle boarders and kite surfers; it is pretty crowded out there in the summer months. GAFIRS provides an essential service to civilian safety, and I simply cannot stress its value enough.
GAFIRS responded to 135 incidents in 2022, making the year its busiest in 12 years and third busiest in the last 29. In those 135 incidents, it assisted 171 people, eight of whom were “life at risk”, including marine emergencies and first aid assistance on shore. Of the incidents, 126 were HM Coastguard taskings.
GAFIRS is managed and delivered solely by a tremendous team of volunteers. We have heard all about the incredible volunteers that support the service and make it flourish. Our volunteers are of a variety of ages and come from a whole swathe of professions. They operate 24/7, 365 days a year. To put that in context, 61 of the coastguard incidents in 2022 were weekend duty day taskings, with the crew on standby at the station or afloat on patrol, but 65 were out-of-hour pager callouts—33 daytime, 14 evening and 18 night-time. Volunteers are giving their time, day and night, often at unsociable or typically non-working hours. Of course, it is a commitment not just by the volunteers, but by their families, who should not be forgotten, as they support these great sacrifices.
Like all the other independent lifeboat services, GAFIRS relies solely on donations and receives no Government funding at all, which is why I could be found in the sea on new year’s day, alongside hundreds of my constituents in fancy dress. I was not in fancy dress myself, but my youngest son was dressed as a 6-foot tall banana and could easily be seen from any drone; he is a shy, retiring soul! GAFIRS is remarkable and very well valued by local people, which is why people are prepared to go into the sea on new year’s day dressed in a variety of different costumes.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
My hon. Friend speaks passionately about the work of the inshore volunteer lifeboat services. Does she agree that inland lifeboat services such as the Severn Area Rescue Association—which works incredibly hard at times of flooding along the River Severn, as far as Bewdley and Stourport—do just as good a job with just as many personal sacrifices in terms of time and effort as any others?
Dame Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The water gives us so much enjoyment and pleasure but can be a dangerous place. There are challenges up and down the country, inland and at sea, that volunteers rise to every single day.
The response time of GAFIRS is incredible. For all 135 incidents, the average time from being alerted to being in attendance or standing down was just over 16 minutes. The volunteers are, quite simply, local heroes; lives would be lost without them. They do not only respond to a variety of incidents; my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) spoke about the importance of training people to understand the dangers, and our volunteers actively promote water safety. In 2022, they provided 29 sea safety education talks to 1,194 local children and 100 teachers and leaders.
Before I sit down, I want to take the opportunity to thank the National Coastwatch Institution, which operates out of Fort Blockhouse and Lee-on-the-Solent. It provides eyes along the coast and is an invaluable service to local people. I am extraordinarily proud to have it and GAFIRS in my community, and I want to put on the record my enormous thanks and gratitude to them for everything they do.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is a privilege to take part in this debate, and our thanks are due to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for making that possible.
We all come to an awareness of volunteer lifeboat crews in different ways. In my case, it was as a schoolboy growing up in Swansea. I remember in the 1950s visiting the Mumbles lifeboat and noting its unusual name. It was called the William Gammon, and it was in later years that I learned the reason for that. It was named after a particularly heroic coxswain of a previous lifeboat—a man who had been awarded a bronze and a gold medal for incredibly brave rescues in 1941 and 1944, but lost his life, together with seven colleagues in his crew, in the great disaster of 23 April 1947, when a former Liberty ship, the SS Samtampa, broke up off Sker Point off the coast of south Wales.
I remember going to the reference library on a research project and looking at the South Wales Evening Post report of that disaster. The headline—I think I am right in rendering it—said: “One terrible tragedy after another in the channel”. It showed the upturned lifeboat and the wrecked ship. That image has never left me. It is a tradition of which everybody who volunteers to serve in lifeboats is all too aware.
In those days, one had to go back to the newspapers to try to relive the experiences and heroism of the lifeboat crews, but today we have modern media. If colleagues on both sides of the Chamber take away only one thought from my brief contribution, it should be this: I urge them to go online and have a look at a BBC documentary called “Cruel Sea”. They can find it on YouTube. It was made in 2006 to mark the 25th anniversary of another disaster—the loss of the Penlee lifeboat. It is a quite extraordinary piece of television; they will never forget it, and I advise them to have a box of Kleenex tissues by their side. I have seen it several times, and I always find it hard to maintain my composure.
The documentary is about the way in which that crew and its coxswain, the late Trevelyan Richards, went out to try to rescue eight people on a vessel, the Union Star, whose engines had failed and was drifting toward the rocks. It contains the actual recordings of the messages that went back from the Penlee lifeboat to the command station, which tried to communicate with the boat. At one point—this was watched by a helicopter crew who were powerless to intervene but saw everything—the crew had managed to get four of the eight people off the ship. The waves were 60 foot high. The Penlee lifeboat was lifted up and actually came down on the deck of the ship it was trying to save the crew from, before being washed off. The crew went back one last time to try to get the last four people, and at that point they were lost.
The thought that remains with me is the calmness of the voice of Trevelyan Richards in moments of extreme peril, right up to the point at which the radio goes silent and we just hear the command station calling, “Penlee lifeboat, Penlee lifeboat, come in.” Of course, it never could. It is an unforgettable programme. It is a great tradition that, to this day, comes down to independent lifeboats such as Solent Rescue, which operates from Lepe in my constituency, and to RNLI stations such as RNLI Calshot. It operates with a 112-foot tower at Calshot Spit, with the aid of the National Coastwatch Institution, spotting the people who get into difficulties in the Solent. Frankly, these are the finest people we will ever know. I do not think I can say anything further than that.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
I thank all Back-Bench speakers for their discipline and self-restraint, which is much appreciated.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for bringing forward this important debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee, of which I am a former Member, along with you, Mr Davies, and the hon. Member for Torbay.
The hon. Member for Torbay started the debate extremely powerfully with a lot of good points. There will be a huge amount of consensus, which is unusual, particularly from the SNP in this place. I will detail that particularly when I get to the speech made by the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). The hon. Member for Torbay rightly said that search and rescue is carried out by a number of governmental and independent organisations and agencies. He also mentioned the Penlee lifeboat, which lost all eight of its crew in 1981. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has just powerfully described that incident, and I will come to that when I sum up his contribution. The hon. Member for Torbay mentioned that there were nearly 10,000 taskings last year, and made an important point about preventive work through education and training. He rightly highlighted the excellent work of his own local lifeboat in Torbay.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) was absolutely right to mention how treacherous the waters can be off the north-west coast of Scotland. He also made what may appear to be a lighter point about the sheep rescue and how important it would have been to the crofter—and no doubt to the sheep themselves. That put me in mind of another rescue; I think it was the Skye lifeboat that helped to refloat some stranded dolphins last summer. It is not just humans that the RNLI supports.
The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) made many better points than he made in the independence debate just weeks ago. I did not catch their names, but he made a good point about four volunteers who have served for 40 years with the lifeboat service. I add my thanks and gratitude. That makes the wider point that many who serve in the RNLI have done so for a long time, and that must be recognised. He also mentioned the Nicola Faith tragedy, in which three lives were sadly lost.
It would not be a Westminster Hall debate without the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He mentioned coastal activities, including sailing and surfing. The one I was interested in was pier jumping. He confessed that he partook in that activity himself. It is not clear whether that was last week or some time ago, so we are unsure whether his pier-jumping speedos have been retired. Now that I have loaded up that image, I will come to the hon. Member for Moray. It is very rare—in fact, probably unique—that I agree with every word that he said.
Gavin Newlands
I should probably sit down at that, yes. I will not put that on my leaflets, obviously.
The hon. Member for Moray brought up the National Independent Lifeboat Association, which I very much support. That leads me on nicely to the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall). I thank him for his work in setting up that organisation. He was right to say that this debate is essentially a moment of consensus when we can thank all those who volunteer and put their lives at risk on our behalf to save those in distress at sea. He also made the point that they do it all by raising their own money. I add my thanks and gratitude to all those who fundraise for, and donate to, the RNLI, making possible all its excellent work, which we have all spoken about.
That brings me on to the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), who said he was a proud yachtsman and talked about how he shared water safety training with a local school. He, too, reiterated the vital importance of such training for youngsters in school at all ages. As he said, one only has to reflect on the tragedy in Solihull in recent weeks to realise that we must do more in that regard.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) spoke about the impact on the volunteers—the risk they take and the unsocial hours—but also about the impact on the families, which is something we do not always mention, so that was a very welcome point. She also mentioned her new year’s day dip. Rather her than me.
The last speaker, whose constituency I have forgotten—
Gavin Newlands
Of course; I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reminder. He spoke about the Mumbles lifeboat. I visited Mumbles on a rugby tour over 20 years ago, when a number of us had to be rescued that night—albeit thankfully from the Mumbles mile and not, it must be said, at sea.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned—quite rightly and powerfully, as I said earlier—the Penlee disaster. We should all go online and watch “Cruel Sea”, the documentary he highlighted, which I was unaware of. I will certainly go away and look at it, and I thank him for telling us about it. Hopefully it is on iPlayer.
Gavin Newlands
So it is there for all of us. In the spirit of consensus, I would like to pay particular tribute to lifeboat services in the south of England at this moment, amidst the record small boat crossings. I will not repeat all the statistics that the hon. Member for Torbay helpfully set out at the start, but the numbers are simply huge. Obviously, there are 238 lifeboat stations and 240 lifeguard units. As has been said, the RNLI was founded nearly 200 years ago, and in that time it has saved nearly 143,000 lives. In 2021, it saved 296 people. An average of 35 people are helped every day by RNLI crews.
I want to highlight a couple of people, if I may, who were decorated in the King’s new year’s honours list. An MBE was awarded to Dupre Strutt, a mechanic at the RNLI Kirkwall lifeboat station and a retired area lifesaving manager for Scotland. Dupre was part of the fabric of Kirkwall lifeboat station and had followed in his father’s footsteps, having grown up in the station. Since joining in 1983, Dupre has given 39 years of service to the RNLI, during which time he has been directly involved in over 300 rescues, saving over 60 lives.
Similarly, a volunteer mechanic and lifeboat operations manager at Kirkcudbright lifeboat station, William “John” Collins, has been awarded at a BEM for his dedication to the RNLI and the community in the town. He joined the station in 1991 as a mechanic, a role in which he continues to this day, alongside his duties as LOM. Outside of the RNLI, John is employed as the local school bus driver. During the pandemic, he extended that role to deliver essential food supplies around the area.
Of course, Scotland, with its long coastline and 790 islands, has a long tradition of life on the seas and, of course, facing the dangers that can be inherent in that, whether that is winter storms off the Atlantic, fishing boats in distress or leisure craft running into trouble, often with inexperienced people at the helm. Scotland is absolutely indebted to the RNLI, so if I may, and so that I do not miss any out, I will list the stations. They are, from the south-west: Portpatrick, Stranraer, Girvan, Troon, Largs—I will give the list to Hansard, so do not worry if I rush through it—Arran, Campbeltown, Tighnabruaich, Helensburgh, Islay, Oban, Tobermory, Mallaig, Barra, Kyle of Lochalsh, Portree, Leverburgh, Stornoway, Lochinver, Thurso, Wick, Longhope, Stromness, Kirkwall, Aith, Lerwick, Invergordon, Kessock, Buckie, Macduff, Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Aberdeen, Stonehaven, Montrose, Arbroath, Broughty Ferry, Anstruther, Kinghorn, Queensferry, North Berwick, Dunbar and Eyemouth—and I nearly mentioned Berwick-upon-Tweed, but that is only half-Scottish, so I shall leave it out.
We are also indebted to the independent and inshore rescue services, including at Dornoch, as well as the Glasgow Humane Society, Loch Lomond, Nith and the Moray Inshore Rescue Organisation, which I am delighted the hon. Member for Moray mentioned. Obviously, a lot of assistance, or co-ordination, goes to the RNLI through the Coastguard Agency. The coastguard is also 200 years old.
I want to make one point as I conclude, although I do not want to stray too far from consensus. I want to talk about the channel, but briefly, as I appreciate that my speaking time is nearly up. Last year, a record 45,000 people succeeded in crossing the channel, and we know there have been tragedies and a huge number of rescues there. We have always called for and maintained that there should be a safe and legal route so that the coastguard and the RNLI are not put in the position of having each day to save lives in the busiest shipping lane in the world.
Some of the rhetoric deployed has been deplorable, and Nigel Farage compared the work of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and of the RNLI to
“a taxi service for illegal trafficking gangs”.
On the back of that, the RNLI received the most donations in its history in response to a single event—more than £200,000.
We can all castigate such rhetoric, which is deployed by some, but I want to finish on a note of consensus. I say thank you to all who are involved in the RNLI and those who co-ordinate our search and rescue services. In particular, I pay tribute to all those who sadly lost their lives in attempting to rescue others on our behalf.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who represents a beautiful part of the world, for his excellent speech. My researcher indicated that 52 awards for gallantry have gone to the hon. Gentleman’s RNLI station alone.
I shall be following the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who advocated for the National Independent Lifeboat Association, and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), in that we are not really having a debate, because there is consensus. The only note of division I think I heard was in the intervention from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). Perhaps we need a separate debate on what we call that firth; the name Inverness strait might help to sort this out. [Interruption.] I see I have caused complete division across the Chamber.
Next year, it will be 200 years since William Hillary’s vision of saving souls at sea became a reality, and on 19 December 2022 the Minister and I were at the Dispatch Box for the Second Reading of the Seafarers’ Wages Bill. Today, we have heard the story of the Penlee lifeboat disaster, which was eloquently told by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), and on 19 December, the 41st anniversary of the disaster, we were able to have recorded in Hansard our thanks to the crews who went out that night in 1981.
The RNLI was formed to save souls at sea and the institution’s priorities were
“the preservation of human life…assistance to vessels in distress…the preservation of vessels and property…the prevention of plunder and depredations in case of shipwreck…succour and support of those persons who may be rescued…the bestowing of suitable rewards on those who rescue the lives of others”.
I want the debate to recognise those people as well and to be an acknowledgement of those who risk their lives to save those in peril on the sea.
As shadow maritime Minister, I know only too well the sacrifices made by our seafarers, which we saw during the pandemic. However, professional seafarers are not the only people our lifeboats serve to protect. We have seen the small boats in the English channel, which, as has been mentioned, is the busiest shipping lane in the world. We have seen children, women, families and individuals being plucked from the seas by the RNLI and others, and we have heard testimony from those who are tasked by the coastguard to perform their rescue missions without prejudice and without judgment.
There is nobody who is illegal. If people are in peril on the sea, we rescue them—no ifs, no buts. I thank those people for their service and for their determination to save everyone and anyone who gets into difficulty around UK and Irish shores. This is such a vital lifesaving service—so selfless—that, as has been mentioned, it is almost unbelievable that the RNLI receives no money from Government and is funded primarily by donations.
My best man was rescued from a cliff by the RNLI, when he was a child and on holiday. We have been friends for 30 years, and he has fundraised for the RNLI all his life, even being in a landlocked constituency. Imagine how the course of my life might have changed, had that rescue gone wrong, so I, too, pay personal tribute to the RNLI.
As I was preparing this speech last night, I noticed that at 6 pm lifeboats were launched from Hartlepool and Ramsgate. At 9.40 pm there was an incident that led to Tynemouth launching a rescue mission, with another one launching from Falmouth at 11 pm. Remarkable bravery takes place every day and every night. Since 1824 the RNLI has saved almost 143,000 lives. I go back to the original mission statement of Sir William Hillary, when he conceived the idea of the RNLI. I should add that the use of the word “men” is of its time, and not reflective of the nature of the RNLI, who for generations have had women launching lifeboats and working alongside crew to ensure that boats could set sail efficiently and speedily. More recently, they have crewed the boats and acted as shore crew. Now, the RNLI has more than 300 women crew and a third of their lifeguards are female, preventing accidents before they happen with good safety advice and keen stewardship of the shore.
Sir William said that at the heart of this institution would be
“a large body of men…in constant readiness to risk their own lives for the preservation of those whom they have never known or seen, perhaps of another nation, merely because they are fellow creatures in extreme peril.”
Every lifeboat volunteer—whether they be a fundraiser, a coxswain or at the helm— exemplifies that mission statement, and I would like to thank them for their service and their contribution to search and rescue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The words just quoted by the Opposition Front-Bencher, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), were very moving. I thank him for his contribution, and all hon. Members for theirs; in particular, I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for bringing this debate to the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who has done so much work on this issue, which is extremely important. The debate highlights the role of our dedicated lifeboat services, which seek to rescue any persons in distress or difficulty around the coast of the United Kingdom.
It is good to reflect a little on the Penlee lifeboat disaster, which the Opposition Front-Bencher brought up, and which we both mentioned on the 41st anniversary of the death of those men, just a few weeks ago.
During these challenging times, it is extremely important that we continue to support our lifesaving services, and recognise their contribution to search and rescue across the United Kingdom search and rescue region. I thank the hon. Member for Totnes for his dedication to the subject, and for his sterling efforts over the last few years to establish an association for independent lifeboats—those that operate at sea and inland—across the United Kingdom. As a result of hon. Members’ actions, for the first time, our independent lifeboats have the opportunity to form an association, which will support their operations. The contribution of our voluntary search and rescue services is often not considered until they are called into action to save lives, so I am grateful to hon. Members for raising the subject today. The point made by several hon. Members, about whether this type of debate could take place regularly, was particularly interesting.
I thank all those who fundraise for and support these charitable organisations in the way that hon. Members have described. That fundraising is absolutely vital; millions of pounds are raised every year. We have heard stories from many hon. Members about the impact of the RNLI on their families or their own life. I pay tribute to my great-uncle, John Clough, who left his entire estate to the RNLI when he passed away a few years ago. I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the volunteers in our maritime search and rescue services, who have continued to provide lifesaving operations, often in the most challenging of conditions. I especially thank our brave volunteers in independent lifeboats, as well as those who volunteer for the RNLI and His Majesty’s Coastguard, who risk their life to save others at sea and around our coastline. The UK has one of the best water safety records in the world in large part because of their personal commitment and skill. As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, the need for search and rescue will always be there, and we need ensure search and rescue services are maintained. The conditions in which teams deploy are often challenging and potentially life-threatening, as hon. Members can imagine. I know all Members of the House will join me in thanking those who put themselves on the line.
Our volunteer lifeboat services have a long and proud history, spanning 200 years, of contributing to the safety of lives at sea, and their volunteer ethos is a cherished cornerstone of British society. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made a fantastic speech highlighting the understated heroism of those who put themselves on the line. The United Kingdom is also proud to have approximately 40 independent lifeboats that continue to provide life-saving services around the clock; they support our emergency services and protect the environment.
In 2022, HM Coastguard was proud to celebrate its 200th anniversary with events across the country. Our 3,500 volunteer coastguard rescue officers are proud to maintain a tradition of voluntary life-saving services, and to continue their traditional role in local communities across the country, as we heard from many Members today. It has been great to hear from my hon. Friends the Members for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) and for Moray (Douglas Ross), and from the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and many others about their local lifeboat services, or other lifeboat services that they wanted to recognise.
Our esteemed RNLI is recognised the world over for its service, and for its contribution to life saving and to search and rescue operations. However, as we have heard, we are fortunate to also have a large number of independent operators who are not part of the RNLI. Those operators provide vital life-saving services both at sea and in inland waters, as many hon. Members highlighted, and face significant challenges in maintaining their operations. Through the dedication and actions of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, the new National Independent Lifeboat Association has been formed. The NILA was formally launched at the emergency services show in September last year, and its intention is to support independent lifeboats and provide a cohesive voice for smaller organisations that continue to support search and rescue around the clock. I welcome the development, as do the Government, of the association; it will recognise the contribution of independent lifeboats, and provide ongoing support to charities—an important point mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I have not only the RNLI but two independent lifeboats in my beautiful constituency, one at Pett Level and one in Hastings. Does the Minister agree that independent lifeboats, along with the RNLI, provide an invaluable service to our local communities and save thousands of lives every year, and that it is important to highlight the challenges they face, including with funding, public awareness and long-term support?
Mr Holden
I could not agree more. I will come on to some of the ways the Government are trying to help independent lifeboats.
The coastguard has been working alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes to support and guide the development of the NILA, to enable independent lifeboats to apply to be represented on the UK search and operators group. That would enable those small, dedicated charities to contribute to discussions on shaping the future of our maritime and rescue services, which is vital.
Jamie Stone
I mentioned the East Sutherland Rescue Association. Clearly, my constituency is in a part of the United Kingdom that is far away, which means we can feel a little bit left out, but the new body is a brilliant way of making such associations feel that they are part of a much bigger whole.
Mr Holden
I quite agree. It was great to hear from the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr about how remote parts of the United Kingdom, such as Carmarthen Bay—although that is not as remote as parts of Caithness, where some of my family lived for many years—need to have a voice in a central organisation. The NILA is so important in bringing those voices together into a single voice, and recognising their broader contribution. I urge all independent lifeboat operators to join the association. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes for his support for the association, which has increased recognition of the role and dedication of independent search and rescue operators.
Our independent lifeboats and lifeguards, who are not part of the RNLI, continue to provide support to search and rescue operators around the coast and on our inland rivers, lochs and lakes, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), for Torbay, for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) made a particularly important point about water safety, and I thank him for his vital work on that. It is a major issue. Through the National Water Safety Forum and our partners, we reach millions of people a year with advertising and information campaigns. It is particularly important that we continue to do that as drowning is, sadly, still a major cause of death, especially among young people. The UK is proud to continue to support World Drowning Prevention Day, and to promote the selfless work of lifesavers across the UK and the world to prevent drowning and push further prevention strategies.
Our independent lifeboats are often not recognised, but they are run by dedicated volunteers and provide vital emergency services and lifesaving capability. They offer assistance to any person who may be in difficulty around our beautiful coast and countryside. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay made the important point that these charitable organisations rely on community organisation and voluntary support, which is at the core of a lot of what they offer. As mentioned, independent lifeboats operate across England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Jersey, and are dedicated to the appropriate tasking authority, which may ask for assistance in life-critical operations. Independent lifeboats, in common with all our search and rescue operations, are responding to an increasing number of call-outs, particularly following the pandemic, because members of the public have been holidaying in the UK and taking part in more adventurous leisure activities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes mentioned, support from the Department is very much there, and I urge him to write to the Secretary of State inviting him to come and see some of the independent operators.
I turn to a couple of the questions that have been raised. On VAT, fuel duty and the rescue grant fund, I will happily write to the Treasury about this issue, and I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes to do so as well. My office will write to him when we have a response from the Treasury. It is an issue that I know hon. Members are keenly aware of, but we will require further support to get to where we want to be.
Regarding recognition of His Majesty’s Coastguard rescue facilities, independent lifeboats operating at sea and in a coastal environment are required to meet the standards laid down in the rescue boat code, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay mentioned, in order to meet the appropriate construction and safety standards. However, I am pleased that, following feedback from independent operators, the RNLI and key stakeholders, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is undertaking a review of the code to modernise and simplify the requirements, which will assist our dedicated volunteers in continuing to support search and rescue operations. The MCA hopes to complete the review of the code in the early part of this year.
A presentation was held on the membership of the UK SAR in October 2022. Now that the NILA is fully established, membership applications would be welcomed, although I cannot confirm anything at this stage, as hon. Members will be aware. In some cases, independent lifeboats offer specialist skills that would support rescue and prevention activities, both in our cities and in remote inland locations, as hon. Members mentioned. Those operators continue to provide lifesaving operations during these particularly difficult times, saving hundreds of lives annually. I ask the House to join me in thanking them for their continued support for search and rescue services across the length and breadth of the UK.
I am very proud to have responded to the debate on behalf of the Minister responsible for maritime search and rescue, and I hope to have the privilege of meeting some of our wonderful volunteers and dedicated teams, who continue to rise to the challenge of providing lifesaving services, whatever the circumstances and whoever needs them. I finish by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay for raising this important subject, and all hon. Members who have taken part in a very worthwhile debate highlighting the vital search and rescue services.
Kevin Foster
It has been a very welcome debate, and it has been great to hear so many contributions, and so many tributes paid to volunteers, who are the backbone of lifeboat services. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and the Minister for their contributions, and it is a rare occasion when we see the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) completely agreeing with each other.
This has been a good chance to pay tribute to those working in lifeboat services and remember their heroism. As I said in my speech, in the words of that great hymn,
“when the breakers roar and the reef is near”,
the lifeboat services go in and do their duty.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the contribution of lifeboat services to search and rescue.
Emergency Service Personnel: Posthumous Awards
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
I shall call Wendy Chamberlain to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the mover of the motion to wind up.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered posthumous awards for emergency service personnel.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is not controversial to want to recognise the members of our emergency services who have shown particular bravery or have died in the course of serving our communities. We have long-standing awards for gallantry, sacrifice and service for those who have given to our country and people in all sorts of ways. Indeed, several of our own were recognised in the recent new year’s honours list—not only Members from across the House but, most notably, the Clerk of the House, Dr John Benger, who was awarded the distinction of Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath for his services in this place and to democracy. Such service deserves recognition, and the recipients and their families are rightly proud.
Sadly, there are those who have equally served their country and made sacrifices but who are not being recognised as they should. That is why I am here, and I am pleased to see so many other Members here for this short debate. Before I turn to the broader issue of a posthumous award for emergency service personnel, let me set out how I became involved in the issue, and the facts of a particular case in which an individual’s bravery and sacrifice have not been recognised, and a family has suffered a loss that they feel has been forgotten.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing the issue forward; the fact that we are all here to support her indicates that our thoughts are the same as hers. Does she agree that a posthumous award not only rightly honours the dead, but is a small token of our respect and gratitude, which can be understood by a grieving family who long to know that the memory of their loved one will continue in the annals of history? This House must send the message that the sacrifice of our emergency service personnel is valued enough to facilitate that very honour.
Wendy Chamberlain
Absolutely. No award or recognition can ever replace a loved one, but if we can go some way to making a family feel that the loss has been recognised, it is important that we do.
I have mentioned my police service and experience in this place on a number of occasions. My father—also a police officer—was awarded the Royal Humane Society’s testimonial on parchment for his central role in the rescue of a man from drowning in the James Watt Dock in Greenock in November 1983. I vividly remember being sent to school with the newspaper cuttings, and then being asked whether I knew what a “PC” was and being unable to answer. Early in my service, a colleague and I attended reports of a domestic dispute, and we were both assaulted when we attempted to deal with the situation. We both received the chief constable’s commendation. I mention those things not to receive praise, but to emphasise that accepting a degree of threat to one’s physical safety is simply a fact of life for police officers. Why else are officers issued with defensive equipment daily? When officers and staff are judged to have gone beyond what is reasonably expected of them in the line of duty, they are regularly recognised at force level and beyond.
It is almost a year since I was approached by the Lanarkshire Police Historical Society about its campaign for recognition for the late Constable George Taylor. I have no links with Constable Taylor or his family.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Angela Crawley
I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate, and for referring to the case of Police Constable George Taylor, which relates to my constituency. I also highlight the case of Detective Sergeant Ross Hunt. The two cases are horrific, and although the families’ grief will never subside, official recognition would go some way to ensuring that the officers’ sacrifice is remembered. Does she agree that the five-year time limit on posthumous honours and awards is arbitrary, and that an exception would be welcome and appropriate in this case?
Wendy Chamberlain
The hon. Lady is thinking of exactly the points that I will raise. I am grateful to her and the Lanarkshire Police Historical Society. I knew the chair of the society from my service at the Scottish Police College, so although I have no links to Constable Taylor or his family, nor have I ever spoken to them, my police service meant that I was keen to support the work. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), who is present, is also a former police officer, and we have discussed this case.
The late Constable Taylor died on 30 November 1976—just over 46 years ago—and I want briefly to outline the facts relating to his death. On the evening of 30 November, two patients, Robert Mone and Thomas McCulloch, escaped from the state psychiatric hospital in Carstairs, and in doing so they assaulted and killed a nurse and another patient. Shortly afterwards, a passer-by was travelling in his car on a nearby road when he saw a man lying on the road and another signalling for him to stop. He slowed down and saw that the man was wearing a nurse’s cap and assumed that he worked at the hospital. The man asked for a lift, but the driver saw that a police van was approaching and insisted that it was a matter for the police.
Having arrived at the scene and having been told what had taken place, Constable Taylor, who was in the passenger seat of the police van, went to the man lying on the road to see whether he was injured. Suddenly and without provocation, he was attacked. A contemporary account of what then took place says:
“A man was swinging a long-handled axe at Constable Taylor’s head, and he, baton in hand, struggled with his assailant.”
At this point, Constable Gillies, who had been driving the police van and only got out when it was clear that something was wrong, was struck on the back of his head by a baton and turned to exchange blows, before running again towards Constable Taylor. He was once more assaulted and pushed aside. His attacker was running towards Constable Taylor, who was still engaged in a violent struggle with the axe-wielding combatant. The two men struck at Constable Taylor, as Constable Gillies called for assistance on his personal radio, without response. He then struck out at both men who were attacking his colleague, but to no avail. After attempting once more to make contact by personal radio, Constable Gillies ran to the police van and put out a brief call before being attacked by Mone, who ran towards him, swinging a knife in his hand.
Despite the brave efforts of both officers, the men escaped in the police van and were later captured near Carlisle. Constable Taylor died before he could reach hospital for medical care, leaving behind a young family. In the words of the then chief constable of Strathclyde police, Patrick Hamill,
“Constable Taylor displayed exceptional gallantry and courage in attempting to overpower these two dangerous, violent and armed men. His bravery and determination are in the highest traditions of the Police Service.”
I want to place on the record my agreement with his remarks, and I urge the Minister to do the same.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
I commend the hon. Lady on securing this long-overdue, important debate to recognise the sacrifice of PC George Taylor, who was brutally murdered and has not been formally recognised for his gallantry. I offer my full support in ensuring that the situation is rectified. Does she agree that the situation is disgraceful, and an insult to the memory of the officers who gave their lives, and to other brave emergency service workers who keep us safe? Does she also agree, without detracting in any way from the bravery and courage of Constable Taylor and others, that such a retrospective award should be extended to other emergency workers, including WPC Yvonne Fletcher, who was shot in the back and brutally murdered on 17 April 1984 while policing a political demonstration outside the Libyan embassy—an act for which no one has ever been prosecuted?
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He and I know all too well the sacrifices that police officers make every day. He has pre-empted some of the remarks I was going to make to the Minister. This is a very regrettable oversight, and I hope that the Minister is in a position to look at the matter. I know about the work he is doing with regard to Yvonne Fletcher, and I am grateful to him for that.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for organising this Westminster Hall debate. As a Nottinghamshire MP, I thought it was really important to mention that 20 years ago this week, PC Ged Walker was killed in the line of duty in Bulwell in Nottinghamshire. He was attempting to remove the keys from a taxi when the stolen vehicle dragged him to his death. He was survived by his wife, who is my constituent in Broxtowe, and their two children. He is a shining example of why an award, such as a medal, should exist. He and all police officers put their life on the line every day that they go to work. Does she agree that officers such as PC Walker, who lost their life in tragic circumstances, protecting their community, must be recognised?
Wendy Chamberlain
Absolutely; that is why I am here. The fact that so many Members are here for this very short debate shows the strength of feeling about the need to make sure that those officers are recognised.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
As we are hearing, a number of very brave constituents have died in the line of duty, and we are here to support the hon. Lady’s call to commemorate them with these posthumous awards—the Elizabeth medal—on behalf of their families. PC Nicola Hughes was murdered in Manchester 10 years ago, alongside PC Fiona Bone. Nicola’s dad, Bryn, is one of my constituents. I raised this point at Prime Minister’s questions just before Christmas, so there is a lot of strength of feeling here. Please keep going with the campaign, and let us give them the awards that would recompense and support their families.
Wendy Chamberlain
I certainly remember the visceral emotion I felt on hearing about the murders of PC Hughes and PC Bone. It is really important that we do not let those memories be forgotten, and that we give their families some degree of comfort.
I took the time to recount the events of 1976 because Constable Taylor’s courage was never properly acknowledged. The description of the attack, and Chief Constable Hamill’s assessment of George Taylor’s bravery, are taken from a letter that he wrote to the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Bruce Millan, recommending that Taylor be recognised by the late Queen for his bravery.
Three of the police officers who were involved in the ultimate arrest of McCulloch and Mone were given awards. I have a copy of the London Gazette from August 1978, which details the award of the Queen’s gallantry medal to the officers from Cumbria constabulary who were involved. No such recognition was provided to Constable Taylor, who died while bravely trying to stop the attack and escape of those two armed and dangerous criminals.
It has never been made clear why George Taylor’s courage was overlooked. The best guess of people who have been engaged in the campaign longer than I have is that it was simply a mistake. We know that mistakes happen; I am sure that they happen with typed and written letters and paper records, given the electronic issues that we have today. That is not to blame long-retired civil servants or Bruce Millan, now deceased, who was a well-respected and effective politician, but mistakes happen. When it was a mistake on the part of the Government, they cannot hide behind an arbitrary and absolute rule of awards having to be made within five years; sadly, that is what the UK Government said today.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The hon. Lady is giving a very powerful speech. As she recognised, the number of Members here shows that she has brought forward such an important issue. Does she agree that the very least we can do when people have given the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty is to recognise them with an award?
Wendy Chamberlain
Absolutely; we need to do that. There are two issues here. We want to talk about the Elizabeth medal—I know that that is why many Members are here—but I want to talk particularly about Constable Taylor. The UK Government’s response to the campaign is that he cannot be recognised in the way that the Cumbrian officers were because the attempt to have him recognised took place more than five years ago. When the Government do that, they are saying that the officer murdered while trying to effect an arrest cannot have the same recognition as the officers who later apprehended the offenders.
It is not like Constable Taylor’s family decided decades after the fact that his bravery should have qualified him; indeed, his commanding officer explicitly recommended him for an award within six months of his death. If a decision was made explicitly ruling out Constable Taylor—although I fail to understand how that would be the case—and setting out reasons for that choice, the family have not had that communicated to them. It is as if that recommendation was simply lost. Without any clarity or explanation from the Government, we cannot know why he was overlooked, and his family will continue to struggle to find peace.
There has been a long-standing campaign by his family and the Lanarkshire Police Historical Society to right this wrong, and I believe that this is the first time it has been explicitly addressed in this place. There is momentum behind the campaign to finally recognise his bravery. The Scottish Police Federation and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents support it, and it was debated at Holyrood last April in a Backbench debate brought by a Conservative MSP representing Central Scotland. I understand that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice wrote to the Government following that debate highlighting the Scottish Government’s support.
It is in the Minister’s power to right this wrong. This is clearly uncontroversial, and I hope that anybody who has heard these circumstances today will ensure cross-party support. I hope that he will use his time to agree to do so, or at least pledge to disclose why the award was not made at the time, and meet with the Taylor family to discuss the next steps.
As exemplified today, Constable Taylor is not—and will not be—the only police officer or member of the emergency services to die in the course of service. There are many others and many other families—we have heard about some of them here—with ongoing campaigns for justice, which is why I am here with other Members to call on the Government to institute a new award for the emergency services.
As the Minister knows, there is a precedent for this. The Elizabeth Cross was launched in 2009, and it is granted to the next of kin of armed forces personnel killed in operations or as a result of terrorism as a mark of national recognition for their loss. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) put it so well: we cannot replace the individual, but we can at least give their families some comfort.
Awards are not simple and straightforward, because the honours system is pretty opaque. It is part of the royal prerogative to determine honours and awards, but the Prime Minister advises on such matters, so it is entirely within the Prime Minister’s and Government’s purview to discuss and put forward the recommendations endorsed not only by Members in this place but by professional bodies across the country for such a new award.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is giving a powerful speech and we all stand with her in the specific circumstances of PC Taylor, which she has shared today, and supporting the campaign. More broadly, I spent a night shift on Boxing day evening with West Yorkshire police officers—we have lost too many officers from that force. They are asked to attend harrowing situations, and when we are with them we feel their vulnerability. So often the officers are there on their own, and there is no such thing as a routine call in policing—circumstances can change in an instant. I very much believe that the Minister will understand, given his previous contributions in this area, the sacrifices that we ask police officers and their families to make day after day. The medal would be one step towards understanding the contributions that they make, the risks that they take, and what we owe to the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty.
Wendy Chamberlain
I was a police officer, my father was a police officer, as was my husband, and both my stepchildren are serving police officers, so I know very well from conversations round the dinner table what they experience. I know what has changed and much of what has not changed since I served. The danger that we ask our police officers and other emergency services personnel to face in protecting the public has never changed.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The hon. Lady referenced my colleague Graham Simpson who led the debate about PC Taylor in the Scottish Parliament, and there is a strong consensus in the Chamber today. On the point she makes about the current pressures, I declare an interest as the husband of a serving police officer. Does she agree with me that ultimately we do not want to issue any of the medals because we want to protect our police officers and those in our emergency services? A way of doing that would be to ensure that assaults on police officers lead to fines or imprisonment. All too often when there is a series of charges, particularly in Scotland, we see that the assaults on police officers are the first to be dropped, but they are the most important and should be progressed through the criminal system.
Wendy Chamberlain
I remember when police assault was an aggravation to an offence. Dropping that aspect is the complete opposite of what the aggravation to an offence was intended to do. We absolutely do not want people to be in circumstances where they are placed in danger, but we know that accidents happen. I remember a colleague who was killed on a night shift when putting traffic cones out after a road accident, so those kinds of things also happen, as well as the more violent circumstances that many of us have talked about today.
It is always a tragedy when people who serve our communities die: firefighters rescuing children from buildings who do not make it home to see their own families; ambulance workers who rush to relatives for medical care but get attacked and abused by the people they want to help; and the police officers, as I have emphasised at length today, who keep our communities safe, but in doing so sacrifice themselves. I understand that the Government will carry out a review of the honours system this year. There is overwhelming support for the new honour, and I urge the Minister to take the opportunity to pledge Government support for it. There have been mistakes and they ought to be righted. Today we have the opportunity to make sure they are not made again. I hope the Minister will agree to review Constable Taylor’s case and ensure that the creation of the Elizabeth Cross is included in the Government’s honours review.
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Davies. I pay a heartfelt tribute to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing this debate today. She knows that the topic is close to my heart. The families of those involved will be watching this debate and I very much want to speak to them to outline our approach. The first thing I would say, having been through the journey recently with nuclear test veterans, is that it is historically a very complicated process, and it is not within the gift of Government to give the medals out. It is within the gift of the palace and it is the palace’s decision. Of course, the Government can do the background work and prioritise in a way that sees the results that we would support. That is certainly what I will be doing now.
In the last two or three years, we have seen the best of our public servants in particularly difficult circumstances, and I want to pay tribute to the work of our emergency service personnel over that period. They have been on the frontline of some extraordinary circumstances. Hon. Members will be acutely aware of the dangers faced by all public servants, and Members of our own House have been targeted simply because of the work they do. We also remember police officers, including PC Keith Palmer, who died only yards from here in 2017 defending this place from a terrorist attack, and George Taylor, Ross Hunt and those who have been remembered today. I remember very clearly the killings referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry). I also want to highlight people such as Bryn Hughes, the father of Nicola, who has spoken about recognition for emergency service workers, and Lissie Harper, who, after her husband PC Andrew Harper was killed in 2019, campaigned for Harper’s law, calling for a mandatory life sentence for criminals whose actions resulted in the death of an emergency service worker.
I recognise that the campaign has been going on for some time, much like nuclear test veterans and other campaign groups. Things have changed over the last couple of months around the difficult technicalities of working out who should be eligible for this sort of award. Yesterday, we held a meeting on this, as would be expected, and it is now a Government priority to get this resolved this year. I want to get this sorted out and I want to do everything we can. Recognition of the sort being talked about is extremely important.
There are two different aspects here: one is gallantry and the other is those who lose their lives. Clearly, in the military, we have been through this process and as the hon. Member for North East Fife mentioned, in 2009, the Elizabeth Cross came into being. I think she recognises, as many will, the sacrifices that our public sector workers face. There should be no difference, as there is no difference in the pain of the loss in defending the public and the institutions such as this place and others. I am determined to make sure that their sacrifice is recognised in the appropriate way.
When it comes to gallantry, I understand the frustrations, particularly in the George Taylor case. Awards of gallantry, in my experience, are complex, often divisive and difficult to understand at times. The frustrating thing is the lack of transparency, so I will commit to go away and look at that particular case. I will write to the hon. Lady with exactly what has gone on and the decisions that have been made. Clearly, I do not make decisions around gallantry and all the rest of it, but I think transparency is important in this space and I will go away and write to her with details of that specific case. I am more than happy to see her or the family in private to go through and explain what has happened. I am not going to promise things I cannot deliver, but transparency is important. It is important to the family as well.
It is worth putting on record that the circumstances that the hon. Lady related in her powerful contribution are extraordinary. I can completely understand the way the family feels and I can understand the way the police community feels in the perceived disparity of awards. I am more than happy to increase transparency in that place, and have a frank discussion about what has gone on there, so that everybody understands what has happened and we can see the art of the possible.
As the hon. Member for North East Fife is aware, the honours system is a matter for the Crown. The boards and so on set up to go through that are complex. I have just navigated them for another group of veterans who have been through that system. I want the hon. Member and the family to take away from this that in my view this has gone on too long. An incredibly important part of public service is to recognise those who act above and beyond their line of duty and, in particular, those who lose their lives—as well as the families affected—in defence of the freedoms and privileges we enjoy in this place day after day.
I am determined that we will resolve that matter. It is now a Government priority, and I am personally determined to get it sorted out for the hon. Member for North East Fife and, more importantly, for the families and those who have lost loved ones in defence of the society and freedoms we enjoy today.
I want to pay tribute to everyone who has contributed today. We can all recall those who have served in our constituencies, whether they have lost their lives or not, and their incredible bravery, particularly that of the police, ambulance and emergency services but others as well, in administering the civil structures of this land, without which nothing of what we do here would exist. It is important to recognise their contribution and that of their families. Such jobs are often an all-in occupation, and the families live that as well. The hon. Lady knows that. We need to do more to recognise them, and I will personally grip that and look to advance it. I will write to her about this case and am more than happy to have a transparent conversation, within the art of the possible and what can be done.
I will take this forward and hope that this year, with a bit of drive and energy, we can bring the campaign to a conclusion with which we are all happy. There are no two ways of saying it: losing a loved one in the line of duty can never be rectified, whether in police uniform or in the military. It is incredibly important to recognise the sacrifice and the lives of those who serve. I am determined that we will do everything we can to resolve that matter in the near future. I assure the hon. Member for North East Fife that this is now a Government priority and I will meet her to take this further.
Question put and agreed to.
House of Lords Reform
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered reform of the House of Lords.
Happy new year, Sir Gary. Before I was elected to this place, I was opposed to the House of Lords. Indeed, in 2005 I proposed a motion to the Scottish National party conference that confirmed the party’s position that no SNP member would take a seat in the House of Lords. However, after being here and seeing the role that the House of Lords plays in scrutinising and revising legislation, how it holds the Government to account, and the expertise and experience that its Members bring to the parliamentary process, I am now really opposed to the House of Lords. When I say that, I mean no disrespect to any individual member of the House of Lords—and I know that some peers are paying extremely close attention to this debate.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am glad that my hon. Friend has noted that there is a peer present: Baron Foulkes, who was elected to the Scottish Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that if Baron Foulkes, who is unelected, wants to have anything to do with legislation, he should perhaps seek election, rather than sitting in the Public Gallery and no doubt tweeting throughout the debate?
Patrick Grady
I will leave my hon. Friend’s comments on the record. However, it is possible for people to be elected to the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, our former colleague, Winnie Ewing, has the distinction of having been elected to the Scottish Parliament, the House of Commons and the European Parliament; I think that she is the only person ever to sit in all three of those legislatures. I do not know whether a seat in the House of Lords was then offered to her, but if it was she certainly never took it.
However, this debate is not about individual Members of the House of Lords. Many of them have immensely valuable skills and experience that sometimes are not found or replicated in the Commons. Nevertheless, there must be better, more imaginative and more innovative ways of using such experience for the public good than simply appointing people to the legislature for the rest of their lives and just letting them get on with it.
Even the majority of peers themselves think that the current arrangements are unsuitable and unsustainable. The Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House published a series of recommendations in 2017 aimed at reducing and stabilising the composition of the House of Lords, but under recent Prime Ministers the House of Lords has become even more bloated. Famously, the National People’s Congress of China is the only legislative Chamber in the world that has more members than the House of Lords.
That is one of those amusing anecdotes that some of us like to tell guests when we show them around this place. Another one is that Lesotho is one of the two countries in the Commonwealth where hereditary chieftains retain the right to make law, the other being the United Kingdom. Another is that Iran is one of only two countries in the world where religious clerics sit as of right in the legislature, the other being—again—the United Kingdom. Those statements are not just anecdotes; they are anachronisms. They are not really amusing; they are absurd. Sometimes, when we show guests, particularly those from developing countries, the opulence of the Lords Chamber, words begin to fail us. How do we adequately describe what the Lords actually is, how it is composed and why it functions in the way it does in what is supposed to be a 21st-century democracy?
Sometimes, visiting delegations—perhaps under the auspices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union or the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—come to Westminster from countries in Africa, Latin America or eastern Europe. They meet parliamentarians such as ourselves around antique tables and oak-panelled walls and they talk about good governance, democratic accountability and anti-corruption practices. Although such learning and sharing among parliamentarians is always valuable, many eyebrows are raised if in discussions it happens to come up that one in 10 Conservative peers have donated more than £100,000 to the Conservative party, and that in the past seven years every former Conservative party treasurer has given at least £3 million to the party, and almost all of them have been offered a peerage. There seems to be an uncanny connection between donating vast sums of money to the Government, or indeed to some of the official Opposition parties, and the chances of being offered a seat for life in the House of Lords.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I am glad that my hon. Friend is making that strong and powerful point. We have some gall to lecture the developing world about good governance arrangements, when we are prepared to stuff a political institution full of people who are little more than donors, cronies and political place-people, in order to ensure their place in what I would not call our democracy, but our legislature, just for the fact that they have some money to give to political parties. Does he agree?
Patrick Grady
I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. As he and I have said, the connection is quite uncanny. Of course, no one is levelling specific accusations, but that connection is out in the open. It is a simple fact; it is simply numbers. In conjunction with Brunel University, openDemocracy calculated that the odds of so many major Tory donors in the UK population all ending up in the House of Lords are the equivalent of entering the national lottery 12 times in a row and winning the jackpot every time. That is quite astonishing.
As we know, there are limits on the collective ability of the Lords to veto or overrule the elected House. However, as my hon. Friend alluded to, the rights available to individual peers are very similar to ours in the House of Commons. They can put written and oral questions to Ministers. They can vote on and seek to amend legislation during a three-stage process that parallels that in the Commons. Incidentally, that means they can also bump into Ministers privately when they are in the voting Lobbies, which is supposed to be one of the great advantages of in-person voting.
Peers can introduce their own private Members’ Bills. They can sign up to inter-parliamentary bodies such as the CPA and the IPU, and they can join all-party parliamentary groups. There is, rightly, a lot of scrutiny at the moment of the operation of all-party parliamentary groups, but I wonder how many colleagues present have had to leave early or arrive late at an APPG meeting that they were interested in because they have had to deal with urgent constituency casework, or get to the Chamber for an urgent question or a statement relating to their constituency. Meanwhile, colleagues from the Lords at such meetings are content to run on and opine about the topic under discussion, whatever that happens to be, and build their connections with stakeholders and the secretariats of those meetings, whoever they happen to be.
In return for all that, peers are entitled to claim £332 for every day they attend the House, tax free. Sometimes it is pointed out that over an average of 150 sitting days a year, that works out at slightly less than the salary of a Member of the House of Commons after tax. However, in the Lords it is guaranteed for life. Members of Parliament are, without doubt, very well remunerated compared with most of our constituents. However, our constituents can, quite rightly, choose to stop that remuneration and elect a different representative in our place every time an election comes round.
David Linden
Would my hon. Friend put on record the fact that the tax-free allowance that Members of the House of Lords are given is based on a system of them just coming and clocking in? We saw with Lord Hanningfield that they can literally be on the Estate for five minutes, then beaver off and get on with the other jobs that they have.
Patrick Grady
It comes back to the point about accountability. Members of Parliament who behave in such a way would be taken to task, first by their Whips, secondly by the local party members, and finally by the electorate.
Since the end of the second world war, 65 countries have gained their independence from the United Kingdom. Although many have based the design and practices of their legislatures on might be called a Westminster model, I am not sure whether any of them have chosen to replicate a wholly unelected, appointed, partially hereditary Chamber where members serve for life. Even in Lesotho, with its hereditary chieftains, appointed members of the Senate serve a five-year term. Its Senate has 33 members, not over 800.
SNP manifestos in 2015, 2017 and 2019 called for the abolition of the House of Lords. When Scotland becomes the 66th country to achieve independence from the United Kingdom, there will be an opportunity to consider how the enactment of legislation, scrutiny of the Executive and representation of the population can be most effectively —and perhaps innovatively—achieved.
There have been proposals for an upper Chamber of some kind, perhaps based on the model of the Irish Seanad. There have been calls for an increase in the number of MSPs, both under current devolution and indeed under independence. There are more radical ideas for pre-legislative scrutiny and a greater use of citizens’ assemblies and other forms of direct democracy that could feed into the main legislature.
However, nobody, as far as I am aware, has suggested that when Scotland becomes independent, or when any other country has a good hard look at its constitution, it would be a good idea to have a wholly appointed second Chamber. The idea is just incomprehensible and incompatible with a modern democracy.
Pete Wishart
This has always been a quandary for me: what does an independent Scotland do with existing peers who have Scottish titles or who are from a Scottish part of the world? It struck me that, just to show generosity and good spirit, perhaps we could donate all the Scottish lords to the rest of the United Kingdom as a parting gift? Does my hon. Friend think that is a good idea?
Patrick Grady
During the independence referendum campaign my hon. Friend was probably so busy making the case for independence in the House of Commons and in his constituency that he missed the fact that the peers dwelled on that issue for some considerable time and that it was a matter of great concern to them. They came to the conclusion that because they had been appointed for life and were peers of the United Kingdom, the fact that they once lived or served—or even continue to live—in Scotland was irrelevant and they would all be safe in their place. After that they appeared to lose interest in the question of independence.
Patrick Grady
I am sure it is a relief to many people paying attention to the debate. Anyway, that information was meant to be just for background and context, but it turns out that simply by describing the absurdity of the current system the case for reform of the Lords starts to speak for itself. My point today is not so much about what kind of reform of the House of Lords is necessary or what should replace it were it to be completely abolished, but about why reform has not happened or is not happening and the ongoing failure—indeed, the impossibility—of any kind of meaningful reform. There seem to be two main reasons for that.
First, it is not in the interests of the governing party at Westminster or the Prime Minister—any Prime Minister—to weaken the immense power of patronage that the ability to make appointments to the Lords represents. Secondly, it is simply not possible to reform the Lords in any meaningful way without reforming the Commons, and that would mean not just procedural reform but electoral reform, followed by a review of the entire structure of the UK’s constitution. That would never be in the interests of any incumbent party of government.
Members may be aware that there have been some significant interventions on the issue of Lords reform in recent months, and these have, intentionally or otherwise, conceded both of those points. The Lord Speaker addressed the issue of Lords reform in the Hansard Society’s 75th anniversary lecture just before Christmas. His proposed framework was thoughtful and pragmatic, and it is easy to agree with several of the key principles he outlined about why reform was needed and what it could start to look like. He made a key point that the more radical the change to the composition of the Lords, the more radical would be the change to the role of the House, even if there were no explicit changes in its powers. However, to me it then follows that there would inevitably also be a change in its relationship with the Commons, and the Commons would want to find new ways, quite rightly, to assert its democratic mandate.
The Lord Speaker diplomatically regretted the decision of recent Prime Ministers not to show restraint in making new appointments, and remarked that the House of Lords has increased from 778 members in June 2019 to 828 today, with more to come. Those figures show just how irresistible the power of patronage is to many Prime Ministers. Other than various absolute monarchs and dictators, who else in the world has the power to confer a job for life on any person of their choosing? That is a power that rests with the UK’s Prime Minister, exercisable over wavering Back-Bench rebels, potential advisers who need to be enticed away from the private sector and, it seems by more than mathematical coincidence, over many wealthy party donors.
The Lord Speaker also pointed out that a change of Government could easily lead to a further surge in membership of the Lords in order to reflect the changed balance of power in the Commons. That shows, once again, that it is impossible to speak of meaningful reforms of the Lords in isolation, and not consider the effect that reform would have on the UK’s wider political system.
These points are raised in the other recent major intervention on the issue, the recommendations published by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, after he modestly accepted a commission from the Leader of the Opposition to produce a report on the future of the United Kingdom.
Patrick Grady
Yes, what an achievement!
Incidentally, it is a bit odd that this debate is not being led by a Member of the official Opposition. People would think the report would have inspired a rush of applications from Labour Members eager to share their thoughts on constitutional reform and the role of the House of Lords, but in reality, barely a month after its publication, the status of that report is not clear.
Media coverage at the time suggested that it would form the basis of Labour’s next manifesto, which would mean the next election would become a de facto referendum on the constitution. A vote for the Labour party would be a vote to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an assembly of nations and regions, for further regional devolution throughout England and for reform of the powers of the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru, never mind that they were established by a Labour Government after popular referendums, or that previous extensions to their powers came as a result of cross-party commissions, including representatives from those institutions. Now it seems a Labour Government elected on 40% of the UK-wide vote will claim a mandate for sweeping constitutional reform.
Pete Wishart
Would it not be a simple way for Labour to show commitment to true House of Lords reform if it just stopped making appointments to it? A better gesture might be to even remove a few of them now and again, including the ones who do not turn up. Maybe that is a suggestion that my hon. Friend could make to our friends on the Labour Benches.
Patrick Grady
There are a number of Members, including the spokesperson for the official Opposition, present, so they will have heard that. They will have also read the repeated reports of the Lord Speaker’s Commission. The irony is that the House of Lords is more keen on reform than the Government are.
David Linden
I do not wish to burst my hon. Friend’s bubble on Labour party commitments, but is he aware that since 1910 the Labour party has made manifesto commitments to abolish the House of Lords? Given that it has not happened in 110 years, how seriously can we trust the report by Gordon Brown?
Patrick Grady
That is the point; the pattern continues. We keep talking about but never actually implementing any meaningful or wholesale reform. The report does at least recognise that we cannot tackle one part of the system without tackling all of it. For all the fuss and media fanfare, it will just sit on the shelf and gather dust, as my hon. Friend suggests. Reform of the Lords and of the wider constitution becomes a second-order or a second-term issue, and the Executive can get on quietly putting to use the accumulated powers that they enjoy under the status quo.
That probably helps to explain, at least in part, the current Government’s position. They have said in various contexts that reform of the Lords is “not a priority”, despite the Conservative manifesto saying that the role of the House of Lords should be “looked at”. But now, even the modest suggestion of a cap on numbers, endorsed, as I have said, by the House of Lords itself, is too radical. The Minister who is in his place told me on 8 December at Cabinet Office questions:
“The Government do not have a view on the upper limit of the House of Lords.”—[Official Report, 8 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 510.]
So there we go. It is quite remarkable—to infinity and beyond, the House of Lords filled with Tory donors, cronies and time servers. I have maybe saved the Minister his entire summing-up because the position appears to be that constitutional perfection in the UK has been achieved, and nothing needs to change again. Indeed, his colleague, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, seems to have said that he does not believe there should be any further devolution of power to the Scottish Parliament, either—now or in the future. Fortunately, it is not up to them to decide.
Those of us who support independence for Scotland are often accused of obsessing about the constitution. We are told that we should focus on the priorities of our constituents—the cost of living crisis, improving public services. I agree—
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
Now you are doing my summing-up speech.
Patrick Grady
The Minister might be interested to hear this, then. I certainly do agree that those are the key priorities for people, families, businesses and communities in Glasgow North and beyond, but to really address those priorities, we need to address the fundamental systems underneath. One way of putting it would be to say:
“While many of our immediate economic problems can be fixed by pursuing better policies, by stopping the race to the bottom in our economy, Britain needs change that runs much deeper—giving the people of Britain more power and control over our lives and the decisions that matter to us. Changing not just who governs us, but how we are governed, will address a system of government that the British people perceive is broken.”
Those are not my words. Those are the words of Gordon Brown in the introduction to his report on the UK’s future. They make the case that constitutional change is needed if we are to drive radical, social and economic change. The difficulty for the Labour party, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) has said, is that it has been promising that for 113 years, and for 13 of those years, starting in 1997, it had a chance to change it.
At the end of those 13 years, there was a certain amount of devolution across the UK, but there was still a first-past-the-post system that stoked division rather than built consensus, and a system that allowed an individual Prime Minister to appoint whoever they wanted to a seat in Parliament—and there were 92 legislators who still had a seat in Parliament because of who their parents were.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, which is a topic of great interest to me, because I have I have introduced a Bill that is scheduled for debate next Friday. Its purpose is to end the scandal whereby eight seats in the upper House are effectively reserved for men only. I urge the hon. Gentleman to put his support behind my Bill next Friday.
Patrick Grady
I would be very happy to support the hon. Lady’s Bill, and I commend her on her work with the international institutions that I mentioned earlier.
I would also be happy to come back to Westminster Hall and debate how we can reform the private Member’s Bill system, because the chance of many of those Bills getting through is another aspect of Westminster democracy that many of my constituents find incredibly frustrating.
That takes us back to the point that real change to how we in Scotland are governed cannot, and will not, come through gradual, grudging and piecemeal change at Westminster. Frankly, it is independence for Scotland that is most likely finally to force the rest of the UK to look at and reform its constitution, including the role and composition of the House of Lords. For those of us from Scotland, that will perhaps be the topic of some fascinating future inter-parliamentary roundtable, while the democratically elected and accountable Parliament and Government of an independent Scotland gets on with building a fairer, greener and healthier society in what will be the early days of a better nation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I was going to invite those who wish to speak to bob, but you have done so. If you have not bobbed, I assume you do not wish to be called.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I come to this debate somewhat prepared and somewhat remembering my A-level classes, where we had to debate the idea of House of Lords reform. As I stand here now, a few years on from my A-levels, and think about the merits of the House of Lords, I fear that the wolves are circling.
When SNP Members turn up to a Westminster Hall debate and promise to improve the constitution of the United Kingdom, I feel they are somewhat acting like pandas: they want to eat, shoot and leave our constitution. I worry about that and about the damage the proposals from the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) might cause. In his typically erudite way, he came up with a whole host of reasons for some of the mistakes and problems that can be seen in the House of Lords. Of course, we can see mistakes and problems in the House of Commons, and we should not be outright opposed to some reforms or changes. However, what the hon. Gentleman typically forgot to do was to talk about some of the positive aspects of the House of Lords and the important work it does, or about many of the occasions on which the SNP has been led to support the House of Lords when it has checked the Government on important pieces of legislation.
I will start with a few points of rebuttal, since I do believe this is like an A-level debate.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, supporting something and agreeing with a decision are two very different things. Just because, on occasion—particularly during Brexit—the SNP has agreed with decisions that the House of Lords has made, that does not mean that we support it or have ever said that we support it.
Anthony Mangnall
I was not suggesting for a second that the SNP had done so. I was more making the point that, although I hope Scotland always remains part of the Union of the United Kingdom, if the SNP wants to not be part of it, perhaps it should not be making comments on this topic.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North made a point about opulence and tradition—that he was not so in favour of it and that he is lost for words when he stands in the House of Lords. I, too, am lost for words when I stand in the House of Lords—because of the sheer magnificence, the history and the tradition. No nation was ever weakened by a love of tradition; in fact, a nation can be strengthened and improved by it. We can use tradition to our advantage.
When we talk about that tradition and that opulence, we can also talk about the important pieces of legislation that start in the House of Lords and make huge differences to people across the land, not because those in the Lords have necessarily been elected by the people, but because they bring with them a specific understanding and knowledge of sectors that would never normally put individuals into the public eye to make pieces of legislation.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
An interesting consideration about an elected second Chamber is how it would retain its huge expertise across so many industries, which is very important to legislative scrutiny. Does the hon. Member have any thoughts on how that could be done effectively?
Anthony Mangnall
I worry about that, because one thing we may find common cause and agreement on is that being in public life is becoming increasingly hard for us all—both Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords. It is difficult, and it is unfortunate that we are so often in the glare of the public eye, with all of the trials and tribulations that come with that. I would not want to see the House of Lords elected, because I do not think we would achieve that aim of encouraging specialists to be part of it. I will develop those points later in my remarks.
David Linden
I have to say that Baron Mangnall has a ring to it that we could all get behind. The hon. Member spoke about some of the wonderful specialists in the House of Lords. Could he develop his point a little more by talking about the specialisms of, say, Baroness Michelle Mone?
Anthony Mangnall
If I may, the hon. Member’s colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow North, started off by saying that he was not going to be specific about individuals, and I do not think it is right that we are specific about individuals. However, if there is an individual who has done extremely well in business as a woman in the 21st century, I think it is important to note that. But I might also point out that the House of Lords has been a welcoming home to refugees, in the form of Baroness Helic, who fled the war in Bosnia. It also has extraordinary scientists, such as Lord Winston. These extraordinary people make an extraordinary contribution, and they are not the minority—they are the majority.
In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Glasgow North pointed out only a few small issues, rather than the vast majority of positive things that go on throughout the House of Lords. He made the point about cronies in the Lords; the House of Lords is still conditioned to the standards that Parliament sets, and it is still compliant with the rules that we too must follow. It is important to remember that it is not some lawless upper Chamber in which people can do what they want. It is set to the same procedures and scrutiny that we must follow. I do not think we should put that aside.
I have a few points to make. First, the House of Lords serves as an important check and balance. I notice that not a single SNP Member was at yesterday’s debate on the Procurement Bill, apart from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who was on the Front Bench. Dry, difficult and sometimes dull as procurement might be, it is a perfect example of how a Bill can be introduced in the House of Lords, shaped by fantastic expertise from across the Chamber and then brought to the House of Commons, where it passes its Second Reading, not with great confrontation and difficulty, but with acceptance that it is a good piece of legislation that will make a huge difference.
Kirsty Blackman
I would be interested to know whether the hon. Member thinks that the Government will undo some of the amendments the Lords put in and that the Bill will end up looking more like it did when the Government introduced it—rather than retaining what those experts in the House of Lords did to it?
Anthony Mangnall
It is perfectly acceptable to say that there will be scrutiny and change, as there always is, but that is not to say that the job has not been well done by Members of the House of Lords. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aberdeen North may laugh about that, but that is exactly the point of the process. We want to be able to make use of that expertise in the House of Commons, and we want our legislative agenda to be scrutinised in the House of Lords. That is the way the system works.
Those important checks and balances have meant that pieces of legislation that have been passed on the fly—I have felt that, in some cases, they have perhaps been passed too quickly—have been checked and sent back by the House of Lords. When it comes to international development, which I am deeply concerned about, the House of Lords has been extremely effective in that regard. That is something that those on the Labour Front Bench might agree with me on.
David Linden
The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about checks and balances. Can he talk further about how many cheques have been donated to political parties by people who happen to sit in the House of Lords?
Anthony Mangnall
The vast majority of Members of the House of Lords are not people who have donated cheques, but people who have done extraordinary things in society. If the hon. Gentleman would like to go back and look at those numbers, I would be happy to do battle with him—the numbers are in my favour here. The vast majority of Members of the House of Lords need to be applauded, not ridiculed and pursued for being cronies and for not serving their country. They serve their country just as much as we do.
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech supporting the work done in the other place, but surely he would agree that there is a need for incremental reform? Surely he cannot support the fact that an eighth of the seats in the other place are reserved for men only? Will he, too, support my Hereditary Titles (Female Succession) Bill?
Anthony Mangnall
I am used to being a constant rebel to the Government, so I am not entirely sure whether I am allowed to support anything, but I agree in principle with what my hon. Friend is doing. If primogeniture is going to be used, why should it not include women being able to take on titles? However, that perhaps goes over my head and is there for the constitutional experts.
The important point, which should not be overlooked, is that a vast number of Ministers who work in the House of Lords do so not for the extra salary, but because they are interested in the subject. That is something to be supported and encouraged. We need to note more often that Members on both sides of the House of Lords—including on the Cross Benches—work incredibly hard, and not for huge renumeration. They often work far longer hours than those in the House of Commons. It is important to say that we support this system. We can look at minor reforms to improve it and to ensure that Ministers who serve the Crown do so under their own hard work—not with the remuneration of the State.
I have made my points regarding the checks and balances, the value of the scrutiny of the Lords and the hard work that Ministers and peers put in, but it is also worth looking at the composition of the House of Lords. I have mentioned people such as Baroness Helic, whom I know as a friend and whom I have worked for, and I have followed individuals such as Lord Winston. Too often, we are scared to stand up to public opinion, but in the House of Lords we have a body of people who are governed not necessarily by public opinion but by the expertise and knowledge they bring to that place. They can discuss the issues not because they have read a briefing paper that morning or been briefed by a group, but because they have real-life, world experience. They have the expertise to be able to tease out the legislation that needs to be passed. That is something to be grateful for and to be cherished. It improves our legislation and the system we have in this country.
It is easy for individuals, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North did in his opening remarks, to talk about things such as China and to make an anecdotal point I have made on a number of occasions. In fact, I have often made the joke that when a young Member is introduced to the House of Lords they usually get a cheer when they run up the stairs, because they are so young. Perhaps it is rather unfair to say that, but I would make this point: yes, we can change the numbers in the House of Lords—maybe that could be up for discussion in the future, but that is up to the Government—but we need to ensure that we retain that expertise.
I will use an international example, as that is what the hon. Member for Glasgow North did. The Cabinet of the United States Government is not made up of elected individuals. They are appointed, albeit not for life—I accept that point—and they wield huge power, so let us not say that we are out of kilter with the rest of the world. We have a body of people who check themselves and who are required to have parliamentary scrutiny and the rigours of debate. This arrangement does work in other countries in certain systems. That is the important point, not the comparison to China or Lesotho, which the hon. Gentleman made. We should look at where this works and where we might be able to improve things.
I have taken far too long already, but there is another important point to make. There is value here. Improvements can always be made in both Houses. We should all be aware of that. I fear the day when we are unable to ensure that experts can go into the House of Lords, because they fear the rigours that we all have to deal with as elected Members. It is not easy being a Member of Parliament—we all know that. I do not think people would be readily able to stand up in the House of Lords and say, “I’ll go for election and the scrutiny and difficulties that come with that from the British public.” It is deeply troubling and unfortunate that so many people are persecuted and subjected to such appalling things on social media.
We must continue to use the House of Lords as a check and balance, a place of expertise, a place where we can celebrate the hard work of our Ministers and a place to which we can attract some of the most extraordinary people from around the world. It is typically generous of this country that we take migrants and end up putting them into the House of Lords. That has happened, and I think we should celebrate it.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on securing the debate. As a democrat, it is one that I welcome. I believe that those who are responsible for our laws should have democratic legitimacy. If they do not, our politics, which already struggles to hold the confidence of many members of the public, will continue to ebb away. Of course, it is not entirely correct that no Member of the Lords has a democratic mandate. Last year, there were half a dozen by-elections to replace hereditary peers. As we know, it is a very selective electorate, with only other hereditary peers able to vote. The last election saw a grand total of 37 votes cast. I suggest that anyone who believes that that should be the limit of our ambitions for democracy in the House of Lords should aim a little higher.
As has been reflected on, many Members of the House of Lords do make excellent contributions, but some are, sadly, a little less assiduous. We know that an average of only between a half and two thirds of the Members of the upper House actually attend, and many Members have not spoken or voted in a considerable time.
Margaret Ferrier
The House of Lords currently has a huge number of peers—over 800. Does the hon. Member agree that reducing that number could be one aspect of initial reform, along with looking at ways to increase the diversity of the membership of the other House, as the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), said.
Justin Madders
I believe that it was Government policy not so long ago to reduce the membership of the Lords. I am not sure that that has been kept on track—like many Government policies.
Many Members do not speak or attend at all, but they appear to be able to do so without any accountability. That is an affront to democracy and an insult to the public.
David Linden
When we talk about the House of Lords, one thing I find amusing is the concept of working peers. We do not talk about “working refuse collectors” or “working brain surgeons”. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be some sort of threshold, at least in the beginning, such that if a peer has not spoken or voted, they automatically lose their place in the House of Lords, by virtue of not being a working peer?
Justin Madders
That is an interesting suggestion. I would suggest that lords in that position should do the honourable thing and resign. We have spoken about the Government wanting to have minimum service levels; indeed, they want to sack nurses and teachers who do not keep to those. Perhaps they should apply the same standards to Members of the Lords.
I am certainly not claiming that there are no valuable elements of the current House of Lords. As we have heard, there are many extremely talented Members who demonstrate high levels of integrity, expertise and independence. However, we make a huge mistake in assuming that the second Chamber is naturally imbued with those characteristics because of the way that Members are appointed. As we have heard, there is a growing tendency for those with the biggest cheque books to be offered a seat at the table. That is not democracy; that is not the way a modern country should operate. I see no reason why those who have a place because of their skills, experience or abilities would not have a good chance of continuing to serve if they put themselves forward for election by the public. Ultimately, for all the positive qualities that those particular Members show, their contribution is fatally undermined by the lack of democratic legitimacy.
We essentially say to the public, “We trust you to decide on our future relationship with Europe. We trust you to elect Members of Parliament, councillors, police and crime commissioners, and Mayors. But we do not think we can trust you to elect the upper Chamber of Parliament.” I have no truck—we have already picked up on this—with those who are recent converts to the merits of the House of Lords just because, on a particular occasion, it voted in a particular way that suited their political views. That does not negate the overall democratic deficit that, in its current form, it represents. Let us not allow the day-to-day decisions, and the painfully slow incremental process that we have seen, to cloud the bigger picture: the House of Lords belongs to a bygone era of privilege, establishment and a closed political world, when we are, I hope, becoming a more open society.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) made a fundamental point: if we reform the House of Lords, we effectively reform the House of Commons. My hon. Friend is suggesting direct democracy for the House of Lords. Does he agree that that would necessarily diminish the powers of the House of Commons? It would put another House in opposition to our House, which would be a bad thing.
Justin Madders
That is not necessarily the case, and that is not where the argument need take us. That kind of argument is often put forward by people who want to stifle change and reform.
I cannot believe that anyone would think that the current arrangements are satisfactory. We have, in effect, a halfway house between the medieval institution the Lords once was and the modern democracy that we, or certainly I, hope to see. When the number of hereditary peers was reduced in 1999, Baroness Jay described the Lords as a “transitional House”. It is clearly an anomaly that we have certain people entering there by different routes, and it is time that that was ended.
Anthony Mangnall
I will have two bites of the cherry. The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the House of Lords being a place of privilege, but the vast majority of people are not appointed from a background of privilege; they are appointed from a background of expertise and specialism in their subjects. He references the 92, but they are not the vast majority of the House of Lords.
Justin Madders
That is 92 too many, in my opinion. I do not believe that having a place in our legislature by reason of birth has any place in our modern democracy.
As has been picked up on already, the recent report from former Prime Minister Gordon Brown sets out the case for reform very well; it contains serious proposals for what a modern, democratic second Chamber could look like, which could be implemented without us necessarily having to change the way we in this House work. Some of the big messages in that report about the loss of trust in our democratic institutions are ones that we should all be concerned about. The fact that more than 50% of adults believe it does not matter who they vote for and that nothing will change, and that more than 60% of people believe that Britain has a ruling class that will always rule the country, should ring huge alarm bells for single one of us who cares about democracy in this country.
Graham Stringer
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. I would like to pursue the point. If a second Chamber were elected after the House of Commons had been elected, how would conflict between the two Houses be resolved if they had two contrary mandates? I agree that the current House of Lords is not justifiable, and I believe in its abolition, but I do not think we should set up an alternative democratic base to the House of Commons.
Justin Madders
I refer my hon. Friend to the recommendations set out in the Brown report, which outline the limitations on a second Chamber’s ability to reject legislation. The suggestion is for it to have a defined constitutional role and this will cover when it is able to reject issues. Those are matters for further discussion, but nations around the world manage to have democratically elected second Chambers without creating chaos. I believe that is something we should aim for.
Coming back to the figures, we should take very seriously the fact that so many people have so little faith and trust in us representing them. Democracy is fragile and should not be taken for granted. We ignore those findings at our peril. We have to make our politics more open and accountable to the people we serve. An appointed body cannot have a future in that respect.
I will finish on this point. There are always pressing priorities, but we need to look at the bigger picture and at how the world is radically different from just a decade ago. We cannot allow our institutions to remain static forever. We must listen to what the public are telling us.
Justin Madders
I am just finishing. The public want change and a political process that they feel a part of and that is not geographically weighted towards London and the south-east, as the second Chamber is at the moment. They want people with a mandate from the whole nation, and a body that is not just invitation only. They want accountability and representation. In short, they want democracy. Reform of the House of Lords is unfinished business, and it is about time we had a Government who intend to see that through to its conclusion.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I would like to begin by posing a scenario. We go to the public and we say to them, “We have a good idea for constitutional reform. Let us double the number of Members of Parliament.” How do colleagues feel that would go down? Not very well, I think. Suppose we then said, “Let us double the number of Members of Parliament, but elect half of them at one time, and half of them at another time.” How would that work in practice?
Alternatively, we could say, “Let us elect them all at the same time, but sit them in two Houses.” In which case, they rubber-stamp each other. Finally, we would say, “Let us elect one group under one electoral system and the other group under a different electoral system, but one will clearly be subordinate to the other, even though they are both democratically elected.” I wish anybody luck in trying to resolve the arguments and the deadlock resulting from that.
David Linden
May I add one further option? There would be 59 fewer Members of Parliament if Scotland becomes independent, and then the remaining guys could do what they want with their own constitution.
Sir Julian Lewis
If we were having a debate about Scottish independence, I would be happy to engage with that. Our Scottish colleagues have quite rightly chosen to participate in the UK national constitutional debate, and that is what we are considering this afternoon. I have a firm view that if the House of Lords had to go, it would be far better to have a single elected Chamber, rather than two elected Chambers that would perpetually be either deadlocking or rubber-stamping each other.
Graham Stringer
I agree with the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s arguments. Does he agree that there is a fallacy in the comparison with other countries that have two different systems and an upper House? They rely on a written constitution and the courts interpreting it. That fallacy is deep within the Brown report—somehow, constitutionally, we will limit one House when we do not have a written constitution. Is that not a nonsense?
Sir Julian Lewis
The hon. Gentleman is an independent thinker on his party’s Benches. Not for the first time, I find myself in total agreement with him. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said that the system of two elected Houses works well in other democracies. I am not sure that the citizens of the United States would entirely endorse that opinion, great though their democracy is.
Sir Julian Lewis
Forgive me, but I would like to develop my argument a little more. I promise that I will then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is always courteous. I am an abolisher of the House of Lords, but the UK is a complex democracy and some sort of revising Chamber would be required to take care of all its specific demands. The right hon. Gentleman and, I think, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) were here when Robin Cook proposed a series of reforms. I think we voted 11 times on a number of proposals, and none of them went through because of the very arguments made by the right hon. Gentleman. We cannot have competition with the House of Commons, but surely abolishing the House of Lords would not mean that we were left with nothing. There must be something we can think of to go in its place.
Sir Julian Lewis
I remember that series of votes, because I voted against every one of those propositions. I was absolutely convinced that all of them would have changed matters for the worse.
Having said that, I agree with the hon. Gentleman as far as saying that there surely must be ways in which reforms can be made to the existing, non-elected upper House. I am sure that many thoughtful Members of that House agree with that proposition, not least the noble Lord Cormack and Lord Norton of Louth. They run an effective campaign for an effective second Chamber that is constantly looking at ways in which the existing upper House can be successfully improved.
After a promising start, having given a nod or two to the expertise of many Members of the upper House and to the quality of their debate, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), to whom we are all grateful for introducing the debate, fell into the traditional trap of complaining mainly about what the House of Lords is rather than what the House of Lords does, and does very well. In the short time that I wish to take up, I will give an illustration of that—if my technology will allow me.
I have a confession. I have been a Member of Parliament for over 25 years, and in all that time I, as an individual legislator, have managed to change only one piece of legislation, and that was because of the most unusual occasion of a free vote in the lower House. However, in a six-year period in the latter part of the 1980s—before I became a Member of Parliament—I was able, with the essential help of Members of the House of Lords, to change no fewer than four pieces of legislation. For the record, one was to require postal ballots for trade union elections, which was incorporated in the Trade Union Act 1984 and the Employment Act 1988. The second was to outlaw political indoctrination in schools, which was incorporated in the Education Act 1986 and carried forward in the Education Act 1996. The third was a measure prohibiting local councils from publishing politically partisan material on the rates, and that was incorporated in section 27 of the Local Government Act 1988. Fourthly, a more strict definition of the concept of due impartiality in coverage of politically contentious issues on television and radio was incorporated in the Broadcasting Act 1990.
I imagine that SNP Members in particular are sitting in horror at the prospect of all those legislative changes having gone through, but whether or not we agree with the particular changes, the fact is that they were possible only because the unelected House has a very limited whipping system. If a Member persuades thoughtful and independently minded Members of the upper House of the wisdom of a proposed amendment to a piece of legislation going through the parliamentary process and convinces them to back that amendment, there is every prospect that the upper House will insert it in the legislation, and it will remain there when it returns to the lower House, thereby forcing the Government to consider it seriously.
I mentioned the issue of postal ballots in trade union elections, which are now accepted by all. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) tabled an amendment on that issue in the lower House, it got nowhere. It was voted down—not on its merits but because of the whipping system. The vast majority of Members who voted on it probably did not have much idea of what his amendment contained. They did what they were told. In the upper House, if I could convince people that something was sensible and they voted it through into the legislation, I found that it had a better than 50% chance of remaining in that legislation when it went back to the lower Chamber.
There are, of course, undeserving people sitting in the House of Lords, but there are also many people who chose not to become professional politicians. They chose to stay in their own professions and to rise to the top of them. They became top academics, lawyers and people in the field of, for example, medicine or any other profession or trade. I am not in any way being disrespectful to the abilities of those of us who chose to become full-time, or more or less full-time, Members of the House of Commons, but when we made that decision we gave up our ability to maintain and develop our level of expertise such as it was before we took that career path.
Having an unelected second Chamber, even though some people may be put there for the wrong reasons, should nevertheless not blind us to the fact that many people who have great intellect, knowledge and expertise can bring those talents to bear on legislation as it goes through and improve it. It is precisely because they are not elected that they can never seek to usurp the powers of the House of Commons, but always be rightly subordinate to us in this House while we benefit from the value added that they bring to the process.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I appreciate you taking the time to chair this debate so excellently, Sir Gary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for securing this debate. When I was first elected to the House of Commons, I was made the SNP spokesperson on the House of Lords. It is the easiest job an SNP politician can do, because when they do something, we say, “Abolish them,” and when they do something else, we say, “Abolish them,” again. There is just one line you need to know. That is why this debate has been interesting. It has been a thoughtful debate with lots of issues and concerns raised about the House of Lords. Some Members have talked about how great they think the House of Lords is, but we have also discussed a number of different issues.
I will focus briefly on the issue of constitutional obsession. We all have a constitutional obsession. Indeed, hon. Members would not be here if they did not think that things that were not working needed to be changed. It is not just about improving a single constituent’s life by writing to an energy company to complain about a wrong bill. We can improve all of our constituents’ lives by changing the system. That is what all of us are here to do. We are all here to talk and think about the constitution and the changes we want to make to it and to the systems and the ways in which we operate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North is correct that Governments of any type, in any country, have less impetus to deliver change than anyone else. Governments are appointed by whatever system they work within. That means that the system works for them: it has put them there and entrenched their power. Why would they want to lessen their future chances of getting that power?
That point is neatly summed up by the fact that one in 10 Conservative peers have donated more than £100,000 to the party. I do not know which came first: did they donate money and then happen to become a peer, or did they become a peer and then happen to donate money? I do not know the order in which it works, but surely that is a symbiotic, beneficial relationship for both groups of people. It is great for the Conservative party that it can get so much in donations, and it is great for peers that they can get £332 a day, as well as the power and prestige that comes with being a Member of the House of Lords as a result of their relationships, patronage and appointment for life.
I will now talk specifically about how the House of Lords works and operates, and what it looks like. The most recent figures I could find in the Library are from 2019 and show that the average age of Members of the House of Commons is 51. That is not as young as it should be and does not reflect the general population or even the general voting population. However, the average age of Members of the House of Lords is 71. The hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) may be interested to know that he is younger than the youngest peer in the House of Lords. Although he and I are relatively young Members of Parliament, we are far from being the youngest MPs these days.
Sir Julian Lewis
As a 71-year-old Member of the lower House, I will not take offence at the hon. Lady’s ageism. I will just point out, however, that if people get to the top of their professions before they get seats in the House of Lords, where they can apply their expertise, they will tend to be older rather than younger.
Kirsty Blackman
My issue is not with the actions of individuals at certain ages or with the fact that there are many 71-year-olds who could run rings around significant numbers of us younger ones—I absolutely agree that that is the case. My issue is that it does not represent the population. We are supposed to have a representative democracy but it fails to be so because its membership does not look like the rest of the population.
I will take a moment to tackle another thing that the hon. Member for Totnes said. Some 57% of Members of the House of Lords went to private schools, which is ridiculously high.
Kirsty Blackman
It is going down, yes, but much more slowly than if we had an elected Chamber where Members were not appointed for life. Some 6% of Members of the House of Lords are from a minority ethnic background, whereas 13% of people in the UK are from such a background. Because the unelected Chamber is over 800 people large, every person appointed to the House of Lords over a period of years would need to be from a minority ethnic background in order for the membership to look like the population. The unrepresentative nature of the House of Lords is a problem that cannot be fixed easily or quickly because of the fact that people in that House are appointed for life.
The issue of attacking the House of Lords because of what it is rather than what it does has been raised. That is the opposite argument to the one we hear from the Labour party, which suggests that we should not attack the current constitutional arrangement because of what it is—that we should not attack the current constitutional arrangement. The Labour party says that just because the Conservatives are in power, that does not mean that the constitutional arrangement for the devolution settlement is less than perfect, and that once we have a Labour Government it will be grand and everything will be significantly better than it currently is. I am not going to buy that. I am going to attack things for what they do and what they are. It is completely reasonable for us to have issues with the actions of the House of Lords or of the Government in the House of Commons, and with the way that those institutions are set up and run. I see no contradiction in making criticisms of both those things and am quite comfortable doing so.
I do not think that anybody here believes—I really hope they do not—that the current constitutional settlement and the way the House of Lords currently works and interacts with the House of Commons is 100% perfect. I do not think that anybody is willing to defend the current system as absolutely the best possible system we could have. I do not think that is the case, because the system is indefensible. We have a massive House in the other place, and one of the things that frustrates me most about the House of Lords is the fact that it can originate legislation. It is a checking and balancing system; how dare they originate legislation? Lords are unelected. It is done for reasons of timetabling. That is completely shocking if it is to continue to be an unelected Chamber.
I very much appreciate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North having secured this debate and allowed me to have a bit of a rant about the House of Lords and my criticisms of it. Obviously, the way to resolve this—I am quite happy to eat, shoot and leave—is for us to leave the United Kingdom and leave youse to it. In the meantime, while we are members of this United Kingdom, although currently against our will, we would like to improve it. We would like to try to make it better, and to do that we need to abolish the House of Lords.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on securing this debate. I often say that a debate is timely, but this debate really is: we are at a crux of time in our country when we are looking at who we want to serve us. There is a real crisis of trust in our democratic institutions, so it is only right that we talk about this issue.
I am proud to be given this opportunity to speak about Labour’s plans to make our Parliament fit for the 21st century. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for his contribution and I agree with him. I speak as a democrat, proud to be part of a democracy but shocked to be part of only half a democracy at many times. There is a democratic deficit in an unelected Chamber belonging to a bygone era that undermines the value of the expertise that has been rightly pointed out by many Members in the debate. Change is needed.
I cannot continue without paying tribute to our tireless Labour peers. Time and again, they have stood up against the Government’s worst excesses, whether that is by blocking attempts to strip refugees of their rights and dignity in the Nationality and Borders Bill or by inflicting a record 14 defeats on the Government’s anti-protest clauses in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Many lords are expert and hardworking, and deserve the respect of us all on the Opposition Benches.
In the past year the House of Lords has considered 5,244 changes to 100 Bills. Members in the House of Lords raised concerns, pressed the Government for action, questioned decisions with debates, asked daily oral questions and tabled urgent questions, in more than 3,350 hours of business. We are not saying that the House of Lords does not do a lot of hard work or that lords are not, often, experts in their field; we are saying that the Lords could be far better with a democratic mandate.
The time has come for change. We need a Lords that is properly accountable, where the expertise is strengthened by that democratic mandate, and that is up to the task of rebuilding the whole of Britain after 13 years of Conservative failure. The next Labour Government will scrap the House of Lords and replace it with a new second Chamber that truly represents people across the UK.
Anthony Mangnall
May I ask for a bit of clarification? Is the hon. Lady saying that the Labour party is wholly committed to a wholly elected Chamber of the House of Lords? If she is, does that mean there will be a referendum, as has been promised on previous occasions when Labour policy has suggested large constitutional change?
Fleur Anderson
I do not think the hon. Member is alone in having questions about our policy, which is to have a conversation with the British people to decide what the future policies would be. I am not going to be outlining all the dotted i’s and crossed t’s of Labour party policy, because that would be wrong. We need to have further conversation about the result of our conversations. Later in my speech, I will go into what will underpin that.
The SNP has used this debate about the second Chamber for game playing, to undermine the strength of the Union, and has denied Scottish people a voice in the second Chamber by boycotting it—by just leaving it alone. It has no interest in making Westminster or devolution work. Labour will work with the Scottish people to give Scotland and other parts of the UK an even greater say in UK-wide legislation through a new second Chamber. Under a Labour Government, a second Chamber that is more representative will give Scottish people more of a mandate to deliver for Scotland and undo the damage caused by the SNP and the Conservatives.
There are three reasons why we need reform, the first of which is trust. Trust in Westminster is at an all-time low, and in many ways who can blame the public? Never before has the privilege of power been used and abused for personal gain so much and so frequently. The mantra of “It’s one rule for them and another for us” is said far too frequently; people should not feel like that about their elected bodies, and the Lords is a prime example.
Take the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). He recommended 87 new life peerages, but two of those people have not made maiden speeches, even though one was appointed in September 2019 and the other in July 2020. His brazen attempt to subvert democracy by rewarding donors, lackeys and friends makes him the latest in a long line of Conservative Prime Ministers who have gamed the system by installing a conveyor belt of their cronies into the House of Lords, undermining it as a result. Instead of rewarding Conservative donors, we should be rebuilding trust in politics.
Kirsty Blackman
How many peers did the most recent Labour Prime Minister recommend?
Fleur Anderson
I do not know, but we are talking about the system. It should not be the patronage of the Prime Minister that gets to recommend those who vote on our behalf; the people should decide who is going to make those decisions. That is the point I will be making, whichever party the Prime Minister comes from.
In the past seven years, every former Conservative party treasurer bar one has been offered a seat in the Lords, and 22 of the party’s biggest donors have been made lords since 2010. We cannot keep on sheepishly asking for the trust of the people: we need to show how things will be different. Reforming the second Chamber has to be part of that.
The second reason is democracy. Devolution was a major achievement of the last Labour Government, and the next Labour Government are committed to continuing that proud democratising tradition. We have shown that we will put our money where our mouth is when elected. We must go further than the devolution that has already taken place, which includes making the second Chamber of our Parliament fit for the 21st century. It must be more democratic and accountable, and therefore effective, and must accurately represent the people of our diverse regions and nations across the United Kingdom.
We need reform that retains expertise, yes, but the right expertise from throughout the country, not just expertise in knowing the right people. Consecutive Conservative Prime Ministers have ridden roughshod over the system of appointing people to the House of Lords. If things continue as they are, there will not be many experts left; instead, the House of Lords will be packed to the rafters with those who owe their place to favours and dodgy dealings rather than talent and expertise. For too many, a peerage is a fancy title or an Instagram photo opportunity, which undermines the work done by so many hard-working peers.
Hansard tells us all we need to know. There are 41 Members in the House of Lords who have only made one contribution since the beginning of the 1992-93 Session—one contribution in 30 years—yet those Members can claim more than £300 a day for attending and can vote on any issue, changing the lives of people up and down the country. They are not accountable; there is no check or balance. Those Members do not have to look into people’s eyes and be accountable for what they have done, how many times they have attended, what they have said and what they have voted on.
Anthony Mangnall
I think the hon. Lady mentioned 41 lords; could she help me with something, because it is important to be accurate? Of those 41, how many have claimed allowances, how many have actually voted and how many have attended the Chamber at any point? How many of them actually have parliamentary passes? I ask because we need to be clear about this matter; otherwise, someone can start setting a narrative that is not accurate about the important work that is done in the Lords.
Fleur Anderson
The fact is that they have the right to come and vote if they want to, the right to attend and the right to take the money for their daily attendance, no matter what happens. It is just a job for life. They have the notoriety and the title, which gives them some credibility, yet they are not doing the work that should accompany their position. They should be accountable. If they are not attending, not taking the money and not voting, they should do the right thing and resign their positions.
YouGov polling from August last year shows that the public have had enough. Only 6% of British people favoured a House of Lords that is mostly appointed, whereas 48% supported a House of Lords that is mostly elected. Our plans are not just democracy for democracy’s sake, though, even though that would be reason enough. That brings me to the third reason for why reforms are vital. We cannot fix the economy without fixing our institutions and we cannot bring about the social change that we need in this country without fixing our institutions. They are fundamental to our decision making. Inclusive growth must go hand in hand with inclusive governance. A second Chamber packed with the mates of former Conservative Prime Ministers, all of whom have given up on the levelling-up agenda as far as I can see, will not deliver equal growth and opportunity for all nations and regions.
Labour will consult members of the public from throughout the UK to determine the exact size and make-up of the new second Chamber. We launched the commission on the UK’s future, which was chaired by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and involved people from throughout the country, including people from academia, local government, the legal profession and trade unions. As a result, we have articulated three clear principles that will underlie our vision of reform. First, Members of any new Chamber should be elected by voters rather than being appointed by politicians; secondly, it should be truly representative of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom and play an important role in safeguarding the devolution settlement; and thirdly, it must remain a second and secondary Chamber and continue to have a role complementary to the work of the Commons. It will not replace the Commons.
We have to earn back trust. That will happen only with a Labour Government. Only Labour has the ideas and the credibility to fix our politics as well as our economy, and we are the only party that sees the intrinsic connection between the two and that will make the change that is needed.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I call the Minister and remind him to leave a couple of minutes for Patrick Grady to speak at the end.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship today, Sir Gary.
I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on securing this very interesting debate. I often think that we do not spend enough time in the Commons debating our constitution in the broadest sense, although I know that the hon. Gentleman is more interested in the constitution in a narrower sense. If a party is a single-issue party, it is important for it to adhere to that single issue; otherwise, what is it? Nevertheless, it is genuinely interesting to hear what the SNP thinks about the House of Lords because, notwithstanding the fact that the party has a shadow Minister for the House of Lords, as I discovered today, we do not often hear its views on such broader constitutional issues.
That said, it is atheists musing on the divine, in that, like some sort of mystic panda, the SNP intends, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) put it in his truly excellent speech, to “eat, shoot and leave”. Were SNP Members proposing long-standing major constitutional reform with the intention of living in that new constitutional structure, I would probably have slightly more time for their arguments, but alas it is not to be. We heard today a range of complaints and grievances about the House of Lords without any alternative proposal other than that there should be an independent Scotland. The SNP is entitled to hold that view, just as it is entitled not to engage with the House of Lords by having SNP Members of it.
I cannot help but think that after the 2014 referendum which, as the SNP acknowledged at the time, was a vote for a generation, it was somewhat churlish of the SNP not to join the current House of Lords, even if it disagreed with the structure and wished to see it reformed. That would have been a way of representing Scottish views in the United Kingdom, which people in that country voted to remain part of. Because the Union continues, I am proud to say, I encourage the SNP to rethink its position of—I was about to say “abstinence”, but that is the wrong word entirely—abstaining, or staying out of, the House of Lords.
Much as I disagree with the SNP’s views, I think that the Lords Chamber would be richer for the presence of SNP Members. I would like to see more people from more parts of the United Kingdom represented there. Would that it were not so, but a lot of people vote for the SNP, and it would be good if there were SNP expertise in the House of Lords to seek to influence legislation that would have a bearing on people in Scotland. But that is a decision for the SNP. I did not come into the House of Commons to give advice to the SNP.
My own experience of the House of Lords is rather different from that of the hon. Member for Glasgow North, who is grudgingly prepared to acknowledge that maybe one or two Lords have some expertise and something to say. As a Back Bencher and as a Minister, I have attended a large number of debates in the Lords, and I am always struck by how well informed they are and their courteous nature. It is acknowledged that people on the other side of the argument are worthy of respect, even if one disagrees with their views. I have also been struck by the fact that in that forum there is a great deal of highly positive soft diplomacy on legislation. As a Minister I have seen that. You hear and absorb the views of learned folk in the upper House and you start to wonder how and whether they should be reflected in policy.
When I was first elected to the Commons, I had a conversation with—I hope he does not mind my mentioning his name—Lord Young of Cookham. I asked how he was getting on as a Minister in the Lords and he said, “Well, it is a bit of a change from being a Minister in the Commons. In the Commons you get your briefing pack from your officials, you stand up and you can feel fairly confident that you’re on firm ground. When you stand up at the Dispatch Box in the Lords, five former Secretaries of State, three former heads of the civil service and a whole bunch of expertise from the wider world are all waiting to hold you to account.” That is a level of scrutiny of which we should be proud and that we should think twice about before seeking to remove. This is a good-natured debate, but we cannot just chuck away the life experience and professional experience of people we all know are making a positive contribution to legislation in our country.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister is making a good case for a culture change in the House of Commons. There should be more listening to experts. When we consider the Procurement Bill, will he and his colleagues listen to the words of those giving evidence? Will he listen to their expertise and consider making changes? Or will the Bill come out with no amendment that any expert has put forward other than in the House of Lords?
Alex Burghart
We have already listened very closely to arguments made in the Lords, and we have already started to make policy improvements based on some of their recommendations. That does not mean that the Government will agree to all of the amendments that the Lords have made. The important thing is the debate, because iron sharpens iron. We can pretend that we will get similar expertise—as the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), said—from a democratically elected second House, but that simply is not true, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes made clear.
There are a great many people in the Lords with huge experience, perhaps towards the end of their careers, who will not want to stand for democratic election. They will not want to put themselves through that and on the doorstep, and I have sympathy with them. I understand. It would be terribly sad if we lost those people from our legislature and if we did not have their expertise. Also, alongside that expertise, there is space for people in our legislature who are of no party affiliation. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow North has a passionate, political viewpoint. He is a passionate member of his political party, but not everyone in the country is; not everyone in the world is. There are a great many sensible, intelligent people who have a lot to give our democracy, but who do not wish to stand for election under the flag of a particular party. If we were to move to a system of proportional representation, they would have to. There would be no independence in the Commons or the Lords. That, too, would make our Houses poorer and, I think, weaker.
The Government accept, as I think everybody here accepts, that our constitution evolves. It has been in a constant state of evolution for centuries. We are alive to the fact that we will always need to consider changes. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and the Opposition spokesperson spoke in favour of radical reform. Were a future Government to undertake that radical reform, it would bring major risks with it. There would not just be the loss of expertise, but a conflict of mandates, as described by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who is no longer in his place. It is very easy to brush that aside and pretend that we will deal with it later or that it does not matter. I can guarantee that in the event that we had a fully elected upper House, it would start to use its mandate against the mandate of the Commons from day one, and voters would not know how long the mandate in one House would last over the other. We would very likely find ourselves in a constant cycle of elections, rather than being in a position where one party or a coalition of parties could be elected for a term and deliver based on their mandate. Those are all risks that we as parliamentarians must be alive to and aware of.
I have greatly enjoyed the debate today. It is important that from time to time we engage in debate on these major issues.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Member for Glasgow North is about to sum up, but I will let him intervene.
Patrick Grady
The Minister said the constitution evolves. As a bare minimum, do the Government agree with the findings of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the size of the House of Lords, which said in 2017 that there should be a cap on the total number and efforts to reduce from the current number?
Alex Burghart
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him just before Christmas. If people do not turn up, they do not get paid. If people turn up and are involved, why not have their expertise? The Government depend on a majority in the Commons on an elected mandate. If there are more people in the upper Chamber who are capable of bringing decent scrutiny to bear on Government legislation, I have no problem with that. As I was saying, I think it is very good that we get to debate these issues, but it is also important that we do not come at debates such as these pretending that there is a perfect system out there—that we pretend that what we are doing here is laughable, and that, in other countries, they have got it absolutely right. What I do know is that, in this country, we have a fine set-up in which there is one House with a democratically elected mandate, and another House whose job it is to scrutinise and which can advise, refine and, if necessary, delay. It is a system that I think has served us well, and I believe can serve us well in the future. That said, the Government are aware that there is always room for evolution and improvement.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Thank you. Patrick Grady will have the final word.
Patrick Grady
Thank you, Mr Streeter. I would just say to the Minister that I prefer to think that we are on the side of the divine, musing on the behaviour of the atheists, and I will not take any lessons on being a single-issue party, given that the Conservatives all got elected on the three-word slogan of “Get Brexit done”.
I thank the Minister, the Opposition spokesperson—the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson)—and my colleague from the SNP Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), for their contributions. I also thank the hon. Members for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) and for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), and my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), for all of their contributions.
It has been a thoughtful and useful debate, and I want to reiterate that none of what any of us have said —I think—has meant any disrespect to any individual Member of the House of Lords. I think we can all recognise, as the Labour Front Bench did, the significant contribution that many of them make.
As SNP MPs, many of us do not want to be here—we want Scotland to become an independent country. There are actually many Members of the House of Lords who do not want to be there either; they want to see it reformed in such a way that it will probably cost them their positions. But I think that makes my point, which I was trying to get across to the Minister in my intervention. When the Lords themselves support reform, yet such a simple measure and straightforward framework as the proposals in the Lord Speaker’s Committee cannot get enacted, and the Government do not just ignore it but actively work against the recommendations in it, then my point is proved; reform might be a nice idea, but it simply ain’t going to happen. That means that the answer for people in Scotland who do want constitutional change to drive economic and social change—which is what the Labour party’s position is—is that the route for them is going to be independence.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered reform of the House of Lords.
Unaccompanied Minors Seeking Asylum
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
If Angela Crawley is ready to go, it is a delight to call her to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. Just to remind Members, there is not an opportunity in a 30-minute debate for the Member in charge to wind up. That is our convention.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered unaccompanied minors seeking asylum.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I am grateful for the opportunity to lead today’s debate on an urgent and sadly all too familiar issue. Last month, 30 miles out at sea, at 3 am, in freezing conditions, four migrants died after a small boat capsized in the English channel. That is not a new story, sadly—it happens too often—but one of the dead was just a teenager. That news never gets any easier to hear or digest.
In that same tragedy, eight children were among those who were successfully rescued by the coastguard. The Mirror reported that one 12-year-old survivor was escaping Afghanistan after his whole family had been killed by the Taliban. None of us can imagine the horrors that drive people to get on boats or take perilous journeys to cross the channel, yet those horrors are experienced by innocent children every day.
Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children arrive alone, afraid, and have no idea where to start. Unfortunately, this Government are fixated on criminalising and discrediting desperate people who have come to the UK to seek a new life. Vulnerable children and young people are having their rights and protections stripped, and that is the wrong approach. Our duty must be to give them a warm welcome, a fresh start and the protection and hope that they so desperately need when they arrive to seek refuge in the UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. It is an absolutely super subject, but a very worrying one as well. Does she agree that all young people, no matter their backgrounds, deserve a healthy, stable upbringing that gives them the same chance to succeed in later life? Most of these minors will be helpless. Does the hon. Lady feel like we could do better to fulfil our duty of care by not only providing food and clothing, but ensuring that they have a chance of a future life with an education and a stable home?
Angela Crawley
I absolutely agree. I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, as always. He is correct. We have a duty not only as a country and a nation, but as humans, to acknowledge that these children are not the criminal gangs or the ones facilitating the process of getting to the UK. They are simply the innocent bystanders of a process that they themselves may not have chosen.
Far too often, children have been incorrectly declared as adults. An immigration officer will make an age judgment based on demeanour or appearance. If they are judged to be an adult, they are not sent for an age assessment. Rather, they are given a date of birth and sent to live in shared rooms with adults. In 2021, a specialist programme run by the Refugee Council worked with 233 young people over 12 months. The Home Office had initially determined them to be “certainly” adults, when in fact, only 14 of them were adults. That means that 219 of those children were denied the rights and protections of a child, and were exposed to further exploitation, trafficking and violence as a result of that determination. Those 219 children were counting on us to take care of them.
The Home Office refuses to document how often that happens, how many children are judged incorrectly to be adults or what happens to them. There is no process to track such a decision. If there is any dubiety in that decision, there is no pathway to ensure that those individuals are protected and safeguarded until a definitive determination can be made. It is fair to say that even the determinations that are made are questionable at times. I therefore ask the Minister to be more transparent about frontline decision making. Will he commit to publishing statistics on age-disputed children who are initially treated as adults? Will he outline a pathway for those individuals to ensure that they are protected and safeguarded within the system, as they should be?
The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 gives the Home Office powers to conduct medical age assessments. However, the British Association of Social Workers has stated that there is no known scientific method that can precisely determine age. Pushing scientific methods upon age-disputed young people is incredibly insensitive. It ignores the trauma they have been through and the atrocities they have seen.
Those who are wrongly declared as adults will not be able to avoid deportation to Rwanda under this Government’s cruel plans. That is a terrifying prospect for children and young people. I am disappointed in the UK Government. A place that was supposed to be their second chance and a place of safety is only adding to their stress and anxiety. I therefore ask the Minister: when will the report from the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee on specific scientific methods for age assessment be made available? Will learning from the national age assessment board pilots be shared, given their frontline role in rectifying the Home Office’s mistakes? We need to ensure that these processes are transparent and that we can scrutinise them appropriately.
Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are being abandoned by the Home Office and placed in hotels that are desperately unfit for anyone to live in, but particularly children, who are forced to live alongside adults, further exposing them to potential harms. The Home Office has set out its intentions to speed up the process by which unaccompanied children are transferred from temporary hotels to long-term care, but it is simply not enough. Again, that process is not transparent. It only normalises the use of hotels that are unfit accommodation for anyone, but particularly for children who should be nowhere near them.
Every Child Protected Against Trafficking says that housing children in hotels is unlawful, dangerous and contrary to the UK’s child welfare legislation. In October last year, more than 220 unaccompanied children went missing from hotels. Had those children been in the care of authorities, they would have been protected. I ask the Minister again, what is the pathway and how do we ensure that no child who is placed in any form of accommodation can go missing without someone being directly accountable and responsible?
Unaccompanied children are alone, scared and vulnerable. Many have left behind their families not knowing how they are; they deserve to have their families join them in safety. The Home Office’s position on altering family reunification rights for children is nothing short of ridiculous. This Government believe that allowing children and young people to sponsor their families would incentivise parents to send their children on dangerous journeys to the UK. Whether that is the case or not, I do not believe it is a decision any parent would make outside of the most desperate of circumstances.
Turning briefly to the point on family reunification, the Home Office’s minimum income requirement means that UK citizens and settled persons currently have to earn £18,600 before they can sponsor a spouse or partner to join them—more, if children are involved. That means that a substantial percentage of the population who do not earn that sum cannot live with their family and have to leave the country. Many thousands of families have been split apart since its introduction almost a decade ago, and many more have been affected by the rules that will also apply to European economic area family members.
Rather than reduce the level of income, or abandon the policy altogether as I have argued for repeatedly, reports have emerged over Christmas that the Home Office is thinking of increasing it further, splitting more families apart. The fact is that many families in the UK right now may struggle to meet those requirements in the current circumstances. To place that requirement arbitrarily on families only serves to ensure that further families will not receive reunification. It is not a reason to keep families apart. That they make those perilous journeys only highlights the grave circumstances that children flee from.
The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 brought in a ham-fisted policy with deferential treatment for refugees seeking family reunion based on the way they entered the UK. Those who arrived outside of one of the ever-dwindling safe and legal routes need to meet higher tests and additional requirements before being able to reunite with their family members. Organisations such as Families Together are calling for this discriminatory policy to be scrapped.
I close my contribution by apologising to the unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, who come to this country seeking safe harbour—because it is simply not the case. I apologise to the thousands of children who have come here and potentially been lost in a system with no traceability, because this Government refuse to acknowledge that they are in fact children. I am sorry that I could not cover more in this debate, but their voices and stories should not be ignored just because of where they came from. The fact is that they are children, and they should be treated as such. The harm and neglect that they are facing after seeking refuge in the UK can only be blamed on this Government, and the heartless Home Office polices that they exhibit.
I do not wish to hammer home the point any more than I already have, but it is simply unimaginable to me that we have, just recently, 219 children who we cannot account for, and many more who we have incorrectly administered as adults. What will the Minister do to correct that? It simply cannot continue.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
This is a half-hour debate; do you have the permission of the mover of the motion to speak?
Giles Watling
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) for securing this very important debate. I represent the coastal community of Clacton in Essex; we have the second-longest coastline in England. It is a very beautiful coastline with many sandy beaches. Essex has many points of entry. It has two freeports. It was in Essex where we had the horrific loss of life, when 39 people being trafficked were accidentally asphyxiated in the back of a container—Members might remember that horror. I am a yachtsman, and I know how treacherous our waters can be.
Children from the likes of Syria, Ukraine and Afghanistan must have a quick, legal and safe route of asylum to our country. Quite frankly, some of the stories I read about children chill my blood. As we on the coast in Essex know, illegal crossings are inviting disaster, though for victims of modern-day slavery, the crossing might well be the best part of it. But we cannot be emotional here; we have to be calm, and to think this through, as the evil traffickers do. They know that if they tell people to claim to be under 18, those people will mostly be subject to our care system, as opposed to the justice system. They know that councils struggle to deal with complex cases, so people absconding from care to get to their sinister destination is certainly not unheard of.
The only solution is to negotiate with our French neighbours. We have British boots in control rooms in France, which is a welcome development, but we can negotiate further and get British boots on the ground in France. We can finance that. With every boat that lands here, we are telling those overseas that their dangerous business model can work, and telling those waiting here for their product that their evil business model is still viable. However, the point of my speech is to highlight that, for areas such as Essex, stopping small boats is not enough. Human misery can be and is traded in large vessels, heavy goods vehicles and so on, as I mentioned earlier. I urge the Minister to apply the same focus that we have on small boats to other modes of travel, which can be equally lethal, and to get boots on the ground in France for the sake of these children.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) for securing the debate, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) for his contribution. This is clearly an important subject, and I hope that in the time available I can respond to the points raised by both hon. Members.
It is important to underline that the UK has a proud record of providing protection and sanctuary to people who need it in accordance with our international obligations. Between 2015 and September of last year, we offered a place to almost 450,000 men, women and children who sought safety via safe and legal entry routes. They include people from Hong Kong, Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine, as well as the family members of refugees. Last year, we offered more entry route opportunities than in any single year since the end of the second world war. Over the same period, the UK offered protection in the form of refugee status, humanitarian protection and alternative forms of leave via asylum applications to over 90,000 people, including dependants.
It is important to recognise the wider background to these matters. The Home Secretary and I have been very clear, repeatedly, about the challenges that we face as a country, some of which have been referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton. We should be under no illusion about the fact that the UK’s asylum system has been under immense strain and mounting pressure for several years, owing to the very large numbers of people crossing the channel illegally—principally, but not solely, in small boats. Last year, over 45,000 people arrived in clandestine boats. The journeys are facilitated by ruthless criminal gangs who are interested only in profiting from human misery. The tragic loss of life in the channel last month, to which the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East referred, was the worst possible reminder of the dangers of the crossings, and underlines once more why it is so critical that we destroy the business model of the people smugglers.
That is why deterrence will be suffused through everything that we do as a Government, and why I disagree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of our policy with regard to Rwanda. There is nothing compassionate about perpetuating a trade in people that risks the lives of thousands of individuals, including children, every year. That evil trade must be stopped, and we are taking concerted action to do so on a number of fronts, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out at the end of last year. That action includes deeper co-operation with our key partners, such as the French, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton set out.
Angela Crawley
If just one child is incorrectly defined as an adult because of this Government’s abhorrent policy—the Minister calls it a deterrence policy—on preventing criminal gangs, is that not one child too many who will fall through the cracks and be in further danger?
Robert Jenrick
I will come on in a moment to answer the hon. Lady’s questions about age verification, but I disagree that sending individuals to Rwanda, which has now been declared a safe country by the courts, is a policy that is uncompassionate or cruel. Quite the opposite is true.
We live in an age of mass migration. Millions of people wish to come to the United Kingdom. If we do nothing to deter people from coming to the UK, which I think is the position that the hon. Lady and her party suggest taking, we will find not 45,000 people crossing the channel, but hundreds of thousands of people doing so in the years and decades ahead. We have to respond to this issue as a country, as many other countries around the world are doing.
From the conversations that the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and I have had with our European and international partners, it is clear that every developed country in the world is thinking carefully about how they can put in place procedures and policies that will prevent mass migration and deter individuals from making dangerous crossings or damaging their national sovereignty. Other European countries are looking to the work we are doing on Rwanda. We may see other European countries copy that policy and make agreements with third parties in the years ahead.
Giles Watling
The Minister almost answered my point in his last sentence. In 2020, I believe there were some 90 million displaced people across the globe on the move. That figure will have increased. Other countries will be facing the same problems that we face, and they will all have different models. Are we looking at different models?
Robert Jenrick
We are looking at all models; I hope that hon. Members can see from the plans set out by the Prime Minister that this will be a campaign on several fronts. We are looking at every viable route in order to deter people from coming to the UK, to process applications as swiftly as possible, and to find better forms of accommodation when they are here. I know that my hon. Friend’s constituency has been on the sharp end of the situation regarding accommodation. Of course, we are talking to our international partners around the world, who are all grappling with the same challenge.
We are not an international outlier. The policies that we are enacting are those that are being enacted or considered by most other developed countries. The Prime Minister, through his recent conversations with President Macron, and the Home Secretary, through the Calais Group of northern European states, are working intensively and constructively with our partners to find common ways forward. The treaties that we are bound by, such as the refugee convention, were created for a different era, in the immediate aftermath of the second world war, prior to this period in which tens if not hundreds of millions of individuals are looking to travel around the world. It is in that context that we need to sharpen the deterrent we have as a country to make sure that we are not providing an easier route than our European neighbours, and are not a more compelling destination than our nearest neighbours, for those shopping for asylum or, particularly, for economic migrants.
I will answer the questions the hon. Lady has brought to my attention. The first point is about how we house individuals. It is important to say—I mean no disrespect to the hon. Lady, but this point needs to be made—that Scotland is bearing a lighter burden than other parts of the United Kingdom when it comes to refugees generally, and to those who are crossing the channel in small boats in particular. The same appears to be true with respect to children.
Robert Jenrick
I will in a moment. I know the hon. Lady feels passionately about ensuring that individuals are housed decently and compassionately, so the best thing that she and her colleagues could do is go to Scotland and speak to the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities, and encourage them to adopt better policies, so that Scotland takes a fair and equitable number of those crossing the channel.
Before I give way, I want to give the statistics. The Scottish Government have nine hotels supporting asylum seekers, and five hotels supporting the Afghan cohort in the UK, which represents just 1.6% of the combined asylum and Afghan hotel population across the whole of the United Kingdom. There are small cities in England, such as Stoke-on-Trent, that have more hotels housing asylum seekers than the whole of Scotland. That is not fair and equitable. If the Scottish Government and members of the SNP want to play a full part in these debates and discussions, the best thing they could do is ensure that they played a greater part in this.
Angela Crawley
The Minister should be mindful when quoting statistics. It is somewhat misleading to suggest that, because Scotland is using fewer hotels, it is not adequately playing its part. Most local authorities in Scotland have more than stepped up to the plate. The use of selective statistics is very misleading and not great practice. Let us be honest: are not most hotels not suitable accommodation, temporary or otherwise, for individuals? It is therefore misleading to suggest that Scotland is not playing its part. There are many other ways in which we accommodate asylum seekers. [Interruption.]
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division in the House. Can the Minister finish in 30 seconds? I suspect not. If not, we will have to come back.
Robert Jenrick
Could we come back? The hon. Lady had a number of points I should address.
Future of Postal Services
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Before I call Tahir Ali to move the motion, there is obviously a cast of thousands here. It is a one-hour debate, and the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople will speak for five minutes and the Minister for 10 minutes. When Tahir has sat down, I will let you know what your life expectancy will be, but it will be about two minutes, so you should prepare for that. I might give you one minute more, Jeremy, but for most of you it will be two minutes.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of postal services.
It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I refer you to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud member of the Communication Workers Union and an employee of Royal Mail.
The question of the future of postal services has been thrown into stark relief in recent times. The pandemic meant that many were confined to their homes, reliant on deliveries to meet their basic needs. It became clear to everyone that postal workers were key to the economy and to the regular functioning of our society. For many during lockdown, the relief provided by our postal services was vital in maintaining wellbeing and keeping families and communities safe.
During the pandemic, the volume of parcels delivered grew by a staggering 50%, with a total of 4.2 billion parcels delivered in the year 2020-21. Royal Mail saw its parcel volumes increase by 30%, with a total of 1.7 billion parcels delivered, which means 40% of the total number of parcels delivered in the UK were delivered by Royal Mail.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. While Royal Mail may have some challenges, it is important to recognise what it does well, which includes parcel delivery. With Evri, formerly known as Hermes, parcels are stolen, lost or delayed at huge cost to customers and businesses alike. Does the hon. Member agree that companies such as Evri should be held to account for their failings?
Tahir Ali
I agree with the hon. Member’s comments and I hope to cover that specific issue later in my speech. The longer interventions are, the less time other Members will get.
All Royal Mail deliveries were achieved in a way that satisfied most service users. Some 83% of residential customers said they were satisfied with Royal Mail’s service, while 79% of small and medium-sized enterprises said they were satisfied. That was all the result of hard work and sacrifice by Royal Mail staff, who increased the revenues of Royal Mail by a huge 40%, generating healthy profits of £758 million for the company in 2021.
However, £576 million of those profits were promptly paid out to shareholders, with the chief executive officer of Royal Mail, Simon Thompson, paying himself a massive bonus of £140,000. Let us pause for a minute and think about what that £570 million could have done if it had come into the Treasury. It could have contributed hugely towards money to pay nurses, doctors and ambulance drivers.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate. He mentioned the chief executive officer of Royal Mail, Simon Thompson. Does my hon. Friend agree that if Royal Mail is to be sorted out for the future, which the CWU was trying to do, Simon Thompson has no place as chief executive officer?
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, based on his 30 years’ experience working as a postie. As he said, if half the money given to shareholders was given to the actual workers, there would be no need for this dispute or strike. Does he agree that CWU members deserve a pay rise and that the company can afford it?
Tahir Ali
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; that is a very pertinent point. I stressed that £576 million, which she also referred to. This is not about affordability; this is about picking a fight with the workforce, who have put themselves at risk to make sure that we were safe and secure, and received our deliveries throughout the pandemic.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
As noted, my hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree, following on from the previous points, that there can be no long-term sustainable future for our postal services while Royal Mail is paying millions to shareholders from its announced profit of £758 million, while at the same time cutting pay and condition for postal workers?
Tahir Ali
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Services in his region are delivered through Leeds mail centre, among others, which is one of the biggest in the region that he serves, yet many employees are now resorting to food banks to feed their families. In this day and age, it is absolutely shocking that a Royal Mail employee should be resorting to food banks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tahir Ali
I will make a bit of progress before I give way, otherwise interventions are going to take over.
Staff were given a derisory pay offer, and faced an assault on working conditions and threats to cut up to 10,000 permanent jobs and replace them with self-employed drivers and agency workers. It has been left to the Communication Workers Union to challenge this attempt to restructure Royal Mail as a gig economy-style company and protect the interests of permanent members of staff. The recent industrial action, led by the CWU, reflects the anger and exasperation of employees, who have had enough of being overlooked and underrated. After several days of walkouts, 91.24% of workers voted in favour of continuing the strike action into the new year. If management continue to refuse to negotiate in good faith and reach a deal with workers, disruption could continue.
However, I know that staff at Royal Mail do not want to be in this situation. They do not want to be on strike, but they feel as though their hand has been forced. I know this because I spent my working life at Royal Mail—my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) almost gave my age away there; I did not think I was even 30 years old—and I know the values and principles that motivate all who work there. I have experienced at first hand the dedication and professionalism of Royal Mail staff, and I know that they put the needs of service users and communities at the very centre of their efforts.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
When Royal Mail made a record £758 million profit last year, surely it can invest in its staff to continue to deliver on the universal service obligation that it promised its customers?
Tahir Ali
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which has been echoed in previous interventions. We will be calling on the Minister to go back to the Royal Mail board and stress the need to resolve this issue, because it is not one of affordability.
Royal Mail has, through thick and thin, managed to provide a truly excellent and universal service. Despite the shambolic privatisation of Royal Mail, the ethos of those working within it is still one of public service. Royal Mail was founded on the principle of universal service, and its staff still stand by that principle today. However, the current leadership of Royal Mail seems to be moving the company further and further away from its public service ethos, and seeking to emulate multinationals such as Amazon, DPD and DHL, where bogus self-employment is rife and pay and working conditions are abysmal.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is making a fantastic speech. Does he agree that if Royal Mail cannot operate without driving down workers’ pay and cutting jobs because its first priority is clearly always its shareholders, it has failed in its stated aim to provide the public service that it is meant to? Does he agree that that is an argument for taking Royal Mail back into public ownership? In my view and the view of the overwhelming majority of the public, that is where it belongs.
Tahir Ali
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I could not agree more.
I have highlighted a glimpse of the bleak future that the management at Royal Mail want: poorer pay, poorer conditions, overworked staff, a zero-hour workforce and a service that is neither universal nor satisfactory to the customer. That has been seen in the steady erosion of the universal service obligation, along with the recent announcement that Royal Mail will be split into two entities and potentially sold off to the asset-stripping company Vesa Equity Investment, which is currently its largest shareholder.
It is evident from this that Royal Mail profiteering is becoming the name of the game. The billions in revenue generated by Royal Mail staff are eaten up by shareholders and management, who pay themselves huge bonuses while staff struggle to make ends meet. Instead of being reinvested to truly modernise and improve Royal Mail, this revenue is being used to pay off shareholders.
It is clear to me, therefore, that there are two possible futures for Royal Mail: one as a universal public service provided with compassion and dedication by employees who are valued and respected; and the other just as a delivery company, to be pumped for profit and asset-stripped, at the expense of service users and with workers’ pay and conditions eroded. What does all of this signal for the future of postal services in the UK?
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is making an excellent speech. Is it not, even in commercial terms, an incredibly short-term prospect? Fundamentally, the current management of Royal Mail are trashing the business and will therefore end up, even on their own terms, with a much-weakened company, which unfortunately may then have to be nationalised because it is failing. The service that it is providing is so bad that people are moving away from it. That really is a national crisis that requires Government intervention.
Tahir Ali
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend, who is a neighbouring MP from my region. This will turn Royal Mail into a badly performing company. CEOs and management move on, but it is the employees who stay and have to pick up the pieces.
I believe that the present circumstances offer us two possible paths forward: one ensuring that Royal Mail continues to offer an exemplary public service to all in the UK, with the profits of expanding operations going into decent pay and conditions for staff, as well as improvements to the service overall; and another in which Royal Mail is stripped of its public service ethos and reorganised to generate maximum profits for shareholders, while the service loses out to private competition. I believe that the choice is an obvious one. Royal Mail should be considered a public service, and therefore it should be owned and governed as one. I believe that Royal Mail should be renationalised.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate. As we all know, he has a huge interest in the service and has worked for a long period in it, supported by the people who work continuously. I visited a number of post offices and distribution offices during Christmas, when all the cards and everything else are sent.
This current management structure is purely about asset-stripping and making money out of the service in the short term, and getting rid of the whole service. I think it is incumbent on this Government and the Minister who is here today to have a far more serious debate—I am sure that my hon. Friend would lead it—about ensuring that Royal Mail remains a proper public service for all those people, from grandparents to grandchildren, who enjoy all the cards and other mail that they receive every day.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be brief. If we have many more, there will not be any time for speeches.
Tahir Ali
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is always keen to visit the local mail centre. Under the boundary changes, that mail centre will fall in his constituency, so we can visit it jointly.
I believe that Royal Mail should be renationalised, and I am not alone. A recent poll showed that 68% of the public back the renationalisation of Royal Mail, and studies have highlighted that renationalisation might save £171 million a year. However, we cannot talk about postal services and the renationalisation of Royal Mail without discussing the post office network. The network is inarguably one of the most important for small businesses and local communities, which rely on their local post offices to collect and receive parcels and letters, as well as to export items all over the world.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend is aware, there are only 116 Crown post offices left. When it comes to closing banks, part of the Government’s strategy is that people can access banking services and cash from their post offices. Does he agree that it is highly unlikely that people can access banking services from a post office when that post office no longer exists?
Tahir Ali
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. If a post office operates as a franchise, it can close shop and go at any time. When someone is providing a public service, they have a duty of care towards the community. In rural areas, post offices are usually the only contact that people—especially elderly people—have with someone who is providing them with a service.
The value of postal services must not be overlooked. Citizens Advice reports that one in five residents visit the post office at least once a week, and in rural areas that figure is one in four people. That shows the continued importance of post offices to constituents.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate. Post office staff work really hard, including in Erdington, Kingstanding and Castle Vale. We have seven post offices, but I understand that, despite one in five people visiting post offices every week, there are serious concerns about franchises being lost across the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should fulfil their duty and ensure that post offices are protected?
Tahir Ali
My hon. Friend makes an important point: we should not just look at the Post Office board; the Government have a role to play. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that.
Online shopping is growing exponentially in the UK, with the parcel market growing to over 50% of all post since 2010. Over 130 million parcels have been sent in the UK by small businesses. That has placed pressure on the postal sector to hire more employees and open more post office branches, with 11,365 branches open by March 2022. The postal service has worked hard to keep up with the surge of technology by signing contracts with Amazon, DHL and DPD, among others, to introduce click and collect services, and reaching agreements to deliver parcels to post office branches to meet higher customer expectations.
Despite all the changes, however, there are big cracks in the post office network that gesture towards a bleak future. Government funding for post offices through the network subsidy and investment grants declined from £410 million in 2012-13 to just £120 million in 2020-21—a reduction of 71%. Post office branches have been opened, but out of the 11,000-plus post offices, only 4,000 are open seven days a week and many provide only partial outreach services. By September 2021, over 1,200 branches had closed, which is double the number five years ago.
The accessibility of branches has become a massive issue in recent years; some constituents, especially in rural areas, only have a few post offices near them, and those either work on a part-time basis or are temporarily closed. Not all residents are tech savvy—I am not, either—meaning that post offices are a necessity for some, especially for banking. Over 110 million banking transactions were carried out in post offices in 2017. The number of branch closures has been rising steadily, and it is becoming harder for communities and businesses to access post offices.
The Government have played their part in creating an uncertain future for postal services by severely downplaying their role in helping the community and the economy, and significantly reducing investment in the network. Nick Read, the chief executive of Post Office, expresses the same concerns. He stated that the Government “should not overlook” the role of post offices and postmasters in keeping national and local communities connected, and urged the Government to extend their support for post office branches with energy bills beyond March 2023 to keep the postal service alive.
The CWU has described the continued selling off of post offices as “backdoor privatisation”, an assessment I agree with. It is evident that the increase in parcel delivery and collection, along with e-commerce, gives the Post Office a new opportunity for future growth. That is why we must continue to foster and grow our post office network through investment and not through sell-offs to the highest bidder.
To conclude, I have some pertinent questions for the Minister. First, at a time when the Government claim to be levelling up the nation, what are they doing to increase the presence of post offices in rural areas where elderly populations are reliant on these services? Furthermore, as more post offices are partial outreach services open for an average of five and a half hours a week, what impact assessment will the Government undertake to ensure that every member of the public has sufficient access to these vital services? Will the Government commit to restoring the post office network grant to previous levels as a means of providing real investment and modernisation to the network?
Do the Government agree that Royal Mail should see being the universal service obligation provider as a competitive advantage, rather than as something to be whittled away over time? Do they accept that those hard-working postal workers who put their lives on the line during covid-19 should be considered essential workers key to the national infrastructure? Will the Government confirm that they stand against the restructuring of Royal Mail into a casualised, gig economy-style service, which will prove detrimental to both staff and service users?
Will the Minister explain the reasoning behind allowing Vesa Equity to acquire a controlling stake in Royal Mail, particularly given the threat it poses to the future of both Royal Mail and universal UK postal services? Finally, does he agree that a postie is there for life, not just for Christmas?
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. Colleagues, the wind-ups will begin at 5.38 pm. That gives us 15 minutes. Twelve people were standing, so you have one and a half minutes each.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Gary. Occasionally, sitting on the Government Benches, I wonder whether I am going to get in on a debate, but today I have. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) for bringing forward the debate. I am conscious that there is another debate later in the week on a similar topic, so I will confine my observations to two or three areas.
Let me start by saying that I agree with many of the things that the hon. Member raised about the hard-working posties who deliver mail to homes across the UK. They provide an invaluable service. Anyone who recognises the time spent waiting at Christmas for a card or parcel to arrive knows how important that service is. But it is also important to say that when the market changes, companies operating in those sectors have to change. If they do not, they simply will not be around in the future.
I put that point in the context of the number of letters that are sent by individuals in the UK annually. In 2004-05, Royal Mail delivered around 20 billion letters. Last year, that figure had dropped to 8 billion. The change is dramatic, and is not surprising when we consider how we live our lives today. We simply do not send as many things in the post as we once did.
While I absolutely agree that the universal service obligation should be retained, there is a need for Royal Mail to reconsider how it operates, to ensure that everybody continues to get the services. Crucially, it is the parcel market that is important. That is a vital sector for my constituency and I look forward to speaking further on this issue in coming weeks.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
One and a half minutes flies by. I call Jeremy Corbyn.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) for securing the debate. The current dispute of Royal Mail workers with the Royal Mail Group, led by the CWU, is appalling because of the sacrifices that those workers are making. I have stood with them on many picket lines, in my constituency and other places, and talked to them about the way their jobs have changed and the stress that they are under. They are now threatened with job losses through redundancy, a below-inflation pay rise and a speeding up of the way in which their work is done. The situation is appalling.
We need to value our postal workers for being part of our communities and for their dedication. Our service was unfortunately privatised by the coalition Government —thank you, Liberal Democrats, for your contribution to that Government—and separated from the Post Office. That is absolutely the wrong way to do things. We ought to keep the Post Office and Royal Mail as one.
We should absolutely retain the universal service obligation, so that every address in the whole country can get a letter or parcel. The hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) said that the number of letters has reduced. Yes it has, and the number of parcels has increased. The world has changed, but Royal Mail is there, with the universal service obligation, to meet all those changes in our society. If we take the universal service obligation away, we will be left with a lot of pretty incompetent private sector delivery companies, which simply will not be up to the mark.
Jeremy Corbyn
It is up to the Government to intervene now to protect the USO and take Royal Mail back into public ownership, which it should never have left.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) on securing the debate. This issue clearly requires a debate, with more time, on the Floor of the House.
The current parlous state of industrial relations within Royal Mail has been felt particularly acutely in the Northern Isles. A number of people have spoken about the position of various courier companies and the poor quality of their service. However, for many businesses in my constituency, the option of moving from an unreliable Royal Mail service to those other companies is simply not open to them, because those companies do not operate in the Northern Isles. That is why the universal service is particularly important for us.
The inability of businesses in my constituency—those that offer food and drink and send out hampers, the various craft businesses, and the whole range of other companies that have diversified their business model in recent years to incorporate mail order—to send out their products has been catastrophic. We have felt the impact more acutely than any other part of the country.
This is a regulated business, and it is clear that Ofcom has certain powers at its disposal to protect the universal service. It is surely necessary now for it to come forward. Instead of entertaining talk from Royal Mail about how it can reduce the universal service, Ofcom should look at how it uses those powers to protect it.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
First, I want to pay tribute to my local posties, Wayne and Mark, who are incredible. Wayne, in particular, went absolutely over and above when I was heavily pregnant and then had a newborn. He always did everything he could not to generate extra journeys for me, knowing how difficult that can be with a newborn. That is the value of local posties who care. We are so grateful for the service that they provide, but we stand to lose it if we are not careful.
I tabled written parliamentary questions to the Minister at the end of November, asking what discussions his Department had had with Royal Mail Group on six-day letter deliveries and the future of the universal service obligation. I was reassured that the Government said they had no current plans to change the statutory minimum requirements of the universal postal service. However, in a statement on 17 November, Royal Mail said:
“A sustainable future must also include urgent reform of the Universal Service. Government has now been approached to seek an early move to five day letter delivery, whilst we continue to improve parcel services.”
We are clear in our understanding that what is going on at Royal Mail is a real prioritisation of parcels over letters. The only difference between a letter and a parcel might be the cost to send, rather than the value of the content. Is that not what the universal service obligation is there to recognise and protect? I simply ask the Minister: what are the Government doing to ensure that Ofcom is playing its role in holding Royal Mail to account on its service obligations, and what is he doing to make sure that we look after postal workers into the future?
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I send my solidarity and support to striking postal workers, who are fighting for better terms and conditions and to save our vital postal service. Since the service was sold off at a bargain basement price by the Con-Dem coalition, workers’ rights have been systemically undermined. The union-busting treachery and threats by Royal Mail are destructive and smack of desperation. It is using bullying and intimidation tactics, bribing managers with massive bonuses to deliver mail on strike days, spending millions on agency workers, boasting of a £1.7 billion fund to crush its own workers rather than using that money to settle the dispute and restore the service, and threatening to destroy the jobs of posties and remove their union from the workplace.
Royal Mail must agree immediately to the CWU demands of a backdated pay deal of 9%, long-term job security, an end to the tax on union representatives and members, and a commitment to negotiations on the company’s future. The Government must agree to end the closure of post offices and invest in the institutions that provide vital services to our communities, particularly those in remote and left-behind areas. They must investigate and bring an end to the bogus self-employment practices that are on the increase in the sector. We must end this race to the bottom on pay, terms and conditions. Anything less risks the loss of this vital service, and a great loss to our communities. Solidarity to the CWU and all the postal workers.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali). Once a successful, proud British enterprise in the hands of the British public, Royal Mail is being driven into the gig economy while senior managers are milking profits and funnelling £560 million in payouts to shareholders. They did not get up in the middle of the night to travel to all parts of our country, especially during covid, to care for our communities.
So well depicted in Ken Loach’s film “Sorry We Missed You”, the gig economy’s long hours, low wages and punitive, bogus self-employment will soon besmirch Royal Mail as it sells off the King’s head. Royal Mail is wanting to break up the universal service obligations, sack 10,000 posties and be the next P&O as it recruits agency staff and owner drivers at the expense of the current workforce, further ripping up the pathway to change without having to give account.
This Government are standing by as this next chapter of fire and hire plays out. What have they done? They have walked away when they should be pressing in. They have opened the door for investors—a foreign private equity firm—to sweep in and asset strip. So much for giving back control—they are, to a Czech oligarch. I thank the CWU and its members for standing up for our postal service and bringing it to our attention. As with other companies in failure, the Government will put in place an operator of last resort. We are now at that last resort, and we need the Government to step in and nationalise this company.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
After Richard Burgon, Members will have one minute each, so that everyone can get in.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I have been speaking to local posties on the Harehills and Seacroft picket lines in my Leeds East constituency. It is clear that our posties care deeply about this service, but they are being attacked by Simon Thompson and the Royal Mail bosses. There are attacks on jobs, pay and, crucially, hard-won terms and conditions and, of course, the service itself—on the universal service obligation. Only the other Friday, 17,500 postal workers were in Parliament Square because they had had enough of being attacked by Royal Mail bosses and not being supported by the Government. They want to save this service. That is what it is all about.
If we need any further proof that Simon Thompson and the Royal Mail bosses have embarked on a path of confrontation, not negotiation, let us look at the fact that over 100 Communication Workers Union representatives have been suspended during this strike by the bosses. That smells rotten to me, and it looks like an attempt at union busting. We need a real change and solidarity with the Communication Workers Union. Anybody who cares about our public services and the future of Royal Mail should listen to the workers who keep it going day in, day out, in all weathers. Let us support them, and let us have action from the Government to turn this around.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) for securing the debate. For years, Royal Mail has repeatedly fallen short of several of the performance targets that it is required to hit. The most recent quality of service report reveals that, in the second quarter of 2022, it missed its first class USO by a staggering 20%. As Matthew Upton, the Director of Policy at Citizens Advice has said:
“Ofcom is letting Royal Mail off the hook for substantial mail delays. Failure to hit a single quarterly target for over two years is simply unacceptable.”
While Royal Mail’s year-end quality of service reports chart some improvement, I am not satisfied with this. Royal Mail was closer to hitting several of its targets last year, but it still consistently failed to hit key delivery targets in every quarter since the emergency regulatory period for covid came to an end. Ofcom must provide us with reassurance that unless there is substantial improvement, it will take enforcement action. After all, what do targets really mean if nobody is ensuring that they are being met?
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) and, of course, send my support to all the posties out on strike today.
I wonder if, in his remarks, the Minister could focus on the issue of our Crown post offices being replaced by agency-franchised offices instead. These agency-franchised offices obviously do not offer the same services as the Crown post offices, but that shows a disjoint and a lack of decision making in Government.
On the one hand, we have the Financial Services and Markets Bill—I sat on the Public Bill Committee—in which the Government said there will be continued access to cash and banking services through the postal network. How can that be, when they are allowing those postal networks to be replaced by agency networks instead? We will end up with fewer people having access to cash and banking services. While the banks close, the post offices are not there to replace them. I hope the Minister will address the point about financial inclusion when he replies to the debate.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
We in the Labour party made our fears clearly known back in 2010, when the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), the current leader of the Liberal Democrats, led the charge of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government to privatise Royal Mail.
We warned of the danger to the six-day universal service obligation, which is so important to our households and to businesses across the country, and the envy of many other countries. We warned against not having a major Government shareholding in Royal Mail and of the danger of asset stripping. Our fears are now being realised, with a threat to the universal service obligation.
We hear about the £400 million paid out in dividends and £167 million in share buy-backs, so it is no wonder that workers are utterly incredulous to find that jobs are being cut and they are being told that there is no money for reasonable pay rises. If we want a good service, we need a loyal, committed workforce, which is what Royal Mail has at present, but treating workers without respect and not having proper terms and conditions will soon mean losing that trust.
We need partnership working—management, workers and trade unions. That gives us a good service, which in turn benefits consumers. The workers stay; they create stability, knowledge and experience; and they know their routes, which can be covered in absences. If we do not have that, we will have greater staff turnover, an erosion of trust and, ultimately, the demise of the business.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First of all, I will make a plea for post offices. For vulnerable people, those aged over 65, disabled people and those who live in rural areas, the post office clearly provides a wide range of essential services—services for the local community and citizens, including banking, bill payments and cash withdrawal. It helps older people seek their pensions and provides a sense of community for older citizens living in rural areas. Indeed, postmasters and postmistresses can often be the first to note if an elderly patron has not been in for a while, and many a life is saved by the actions taken. Post offices will also play a vital role in citizens receiving their £600 energy support payment in the coming weeks. Some 49% of all customers pick up Government forms such as applications for driving licences or passports at post offices.
I want to make a plea to the Minister on behalf of post offices. There are 11,400 post offices in the UK, visited by 28 million people a week. I support the debate and I hope that the Minister can support us.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Thank you, Mr Shannon, and I thank colleagues for their co-operation. We now move to the Front-Bench speeches, and it is a delight to call Marion Fellows.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I will speak very fast. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) for securing this important debate. I could not disagree with one word that he said.
I should declare an interest as I have a nephew who is a postie—he works in the delivery office—and I am chair of the post offices all-party parliamentary group. I have worked closely with the Minister and with previous Ministers on the subject, but this country has got it all wrong. The Postal Services Act 2011, which split Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd, led directly to where we are today. We should value post offices—I do, and I know that many Members do—but we should also value postal workers. The universal service obligation is even more important in a country such as Scotland.
The SNP has opposed such changes many times, starting back with Mike Weir in 2010. It should not be a surprise that we think that the post office network and Royal Mail should be put back together again and should be nationalised. I have worked closely with the Communication Workers Union and I have stood on picket lines myself. I think—I know—that the system is not working the way it is just now. Giving profits to shareholders is not the way it should work.
To go back to the universal service obligation, we talk about the growth in parcel delivery, but what about letters to people about hospital appointments? What about really important letters from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and other Government agencies? Those things are causing great disruption to those who most need public services, and one of the public services they most need is a properly functioning Post Office/Royal Mail Group and post office network.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) for securing this incredibly vital debate. He brings a wealth of expertise of the issue, having worked for both Royal Mail and the CWU.
After almost 500 years as a public institution, Royal Mail today connects more than 32 million addresses across the United Kingdom and is the UK’s sole designated universal service provider. Its 160,000 staff are essential workers. Whether they were delivering tens of millions of test and trace kits or being a point of contact for those isolating during the pandemic, we in the Opposition do not forget their incredibly vital work during that dark time, or since, and before. That is why the debate is so well attended by Opposition Members and why we have had such fantastic and passionate contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Holly Lynch), for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), as well as contributions from Members from all parties.
Despite this incredibly important public service and its importance to communities and the economy, the Government are failing postal service users and communities, putting ideology above competence. In July to September last year, Royal Mail delivered 72% of first class mail the next working day and 93% of second class within three working days, both below its targets. As we have also heard, the Conservative Government have overseen sharp increases in the number of so-called temporarily closed post offices and part-time outreach services, leading to significant and growing cracks in coverage. That trend is particularly severe in rural areas. Older and disabled people, carers, and people who do not use the internet, of whom there are still many, are disproportionately impacted. The current industrial dispute has had a huge impact on both workers and service users across the country. We in the Labour party are glad that Royal Mail has returned to the negotiating table, which is what we called for, but the Government really need to do their job to support a resolution. They owe that to Royal Mail as key workers, and to the public and businesses, all of which rely on Royal Mail.
The Government’s decisions on Royal Mail risk a disaster for customers and workers, and a degradation of Royal Mail as a major contributor to the UK economy. An organisation that was once thriving has had job losses in the thousands and a reduction in service, all while giving out over £400 million in dividends and £167 million in share buy-backs. The CWU has been raising concerns about the financial mismanagement of Royal Mail for several months, so can the Minister outline what discussions he has had with Royal Mail regarding its profits and dividends during the last financial year? Can he explain why workers and service users are being asked to pay more for less of a service, at a time when the cost of living crisis is impacting so many families across our nation?
As has been highlighted, there has been a decline in letter delivery. We understand that Royal Mail is seeking to grow parcel delivery, but that strategy appears to be stagnating, so what is the strategy now? Can the Minister say what his vision is for the future of postal services, and when he will act to ensure that Royal Mail returns to pre-pandemic levels of performance? Finally, the recent increase in the holding share by Vesa Equity, a company with links to Russia, is a matter of grave concern. Can the Minister outline the Government’s reasoning for not using the powers in the National Security and Investment Act 2021 in relation to that investment?
Only a Labour Government, supporting the partnership between management, workers and trade unions, can achieve lasting success for our postal services. In two days’ time, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) will lead a debate on the universal service obligation, but can the Minister provide assurances today that this Government are committed to the USO, as we are, and has he made an assessment of the impact of a five-day service proposal on the economy? The Labour party will work with postal service providers to deliver vital goods and services, and to provide social value.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)
Sir Gary, could you clarify exactly what time I can speak until, if I am to give the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali), two minutes in which to wind up?
Kevin Hollinrake
Thank you. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, on securing today’s debate about the future of postal services, particularly given his experience and expertise. When somebody with that kind of experience and expertise speaks, we should all listen very carefully.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that postal services are an integral part of the modern economy, allowing the smallest of businesses to connect with customers across the world and providing consumers with access to a vast range of products. The importance of the postal service to keeping people connected was never more apparent than during the coronavirus pandemic, and I am hugely grateful to the delivery workers who worked exceptionally hard to deliver letters and parcels in those very difficult circumstances. The post office network also plays a unique and vital role as part of the UK postal system, and I will address the points that were raised regarding that network shortly.
To deal first and foremost with the future of the universal postal service, which was raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, the right hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and others, the Government’s postal policy objective continues to be a financially sustainable and efficient universal service that meets the needs of users within an open and competitive postal market. That is why the six-day week, “one price goes anywhere” and the universal service remain at the heart of the regulatory regime, and why Ofcom has a primary duty to secure that provision.
To be completely clear, the Government currently have no plans to change the statutory minimum requirements of a universal postal service, which are set out in the Postal Services Act 2011. However, we accept that the universal postal service is facing challenges, particularly given the decline in letter volumes, which have halved since privatisation in 2013. That answers the question raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), about why people are paying more for less. Part of the difficulty is that the volumes have fallen so much, which affects revenue.
Chi Onwurah
I thank him for giving way, but he has not answered my question at all. There is a decline in one part of the market, but another part is growing. My question was: what is the vision?
Kevin Hollinrake
That is a separate point that I will come to, if I may. I have yet to hear a convincing case for the need for change to meet users’ needs and ensure the financial sustainability of a universal postal service. I have met with both Ofcom and Royal Mail management to discuss that issue. I have made it clear to Royal Mail that it needs to make any case for change to Ofcom, and that I will fully consider any advice the regulator gives me on the future scope of the universal postal service.
The hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who I have worked with closely on other matters regarding the Post Office, raised concerns about quality of service. I am aware that over the last few years the business has faced increased pressures on its operations for a variety of reasons. First, there was the covid pandemic and its lingering effects; secondly, operational revisions were required to modernise and transform the business; and, most recently, there was the industrial dispute with the Communication Workers Union. I do not accept the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) that this is union busting. The management has been clear that there will be no compulsory redundancies, but these issues impact both the business and users of postal services, particularly when important mail items are delayed.
Richard Burgon
The Minister rejects my allegation that the bosses of Royal Mail are engaged in union busting, but does he not think it is rather strange that over 100 trade union representatives have suddenly been suspended by Royal Mail bosses in the course of the dispute? Is that not rather odd? What conclusion does he draw from that?
Kevin Hollinrake
We do not get involved in negotiations, as Royal Mail is clearly a private company. I welcome the fact that the CWU and Royal Mail are now sitting down with ACAS and trying to resolve the dispute. We should give that process time to reach a resolution. I understand that any strikes have been suspended until the outcome of those negotiations. As I say, the Government are not involved in negotiations because Royal Mail is a private company, but we will monitor the dispute closely, and urge Royal Mail and the Communications Workers Union to reach a resolution as soon as possible.
To ensure that consumers receive an adequate service, Royal Mail is required by Ofcom regulation to, among other things, meet certain performance targets relating to the delivery of universal service products. The regulator has the power to investigate and take enforcement action. Indeed, in 2020 it fined Royal Mail £1.5 million for missing its 2018-19 first-class national delivery targets. Ofcom investigated Royal Mail’s service quality performance in 2021-22, and in doing so considered evidence submitted by Royal Mail of
“exceptional events, beyond the company’s control”
that may explain why targets were missed. In that instance, Ofcom accepted that there had been a continued impact of covid-19 on Royal Mail service delivery, and concluded that
“it was not appropriate to find Royal Mail in breach of its regulatory obligations”.
However, Ofcom was clear that it does not expect covid-19 to have a continuing significant impact on service going forwards. It stated:
“We are concerned by the fact that Royal Mail’s performance in the early part of 2022-23 fell well short of where it should be. We believe the company has had plenty of time to learn lessons from the pandemic, and we are unlikely to consider the factors outlined above as exceptional and beyond its control in future.”
When it comes to renationalisation, we probably part company with many of those on the Opposition Benches who expressed views on the subject, including the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the right hon. Member for Islington North, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, who sponsored the debate, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw. I do not believe that renationalisation is the answer. Although there are undoubtably challenges facing Royal Mail, the Government are clear that renationalising the business is not the answer.
One of primary reasons for the sale was to enable Royal Mail to access the capital it needed to invest in and grow the business. When Royal Mail was independently reviewed in 2008 under the last Labour Government, we were told that it was underfunded and had not kept pace with equivalents around the world, which were 40% more efficient. Compare this to the present day: Royal Mail has invested over £2 billion in the UK business since privatisation, including £900 million over the last three years and £441 million in the last financial year in areas such as electric vans, two new parcel hubs, automation and improving its poorest performing delivery offices.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, mentioned the £576 million pounds distributed to shareholders. I point out that there are good years and poor years in terms of financial performance. In the first half of this financial year, I think Royal Mail declared a £219 million loss. That is in the marketplace, so it is not breaching any confidentiality.
Ian Lavery
Royal Mail made a £758 million profit, gave £567 million to shareholders and then, shortly afterwards—weeks afterwards—it said that it was making a loss of £1 million a day. The hon. Gentleman is a successful businessman. Would he not be asking questions?
Kevin Hollinrake
We should always ask questions. I have asked questions of Royal Mail in the various discussions we have had. It is fair to say, though, that when shareholders invest, their money is locked up in that capital. Those shareholders rightly expect a return on that capital, as any Government should. I do not think it is wrong to distribute investment returns where they are fair and proportionate. The hon. Gentleman cannot simply say that money should not have been distributed to shareholders, but it should be fair. There also has to be a consideration of the context: it was probably an exceptional year. This year is clearly far more difficult.
The performance of other parcel carriers, including Evri, was raised. I have had correspondence with various Members present about Evri. It is frustrating when deliveries do not arrive on time or are damaged. Consumers should raise complaints about the delivery of items with the retailer. They can do so through Delivery Law UK or the Citizens Advice consumer service, but the key thing is to get back to the retailer. No retailer would want to carry on with a parcel carrier that was not meeting its obligations.
The post office network is hugely important to us, and we need to maintain 11,500 branches. Ninety-nine per cent. of people in the country expect to live within three miles of a post office. That will continue, and we continue to invest; there was £2.5 billion in funding over the past 10 years, and will be £335 million over the next three years.
To conclude, I have set out that the Government remain committed to securing a sustainable universal service for users throughout the UK. There are currently no plans to change the minimum requirements of the service.
Tahir Ali
I want to respond forcefully on the issue of union-busting tactics. Within days of members taking industrial action, Royal Mail announced that it was taking 10,000 jobs away from workers to scare them into not going on strike. It says that it has more than £1 billion to break up the union. It is suspending union representatives without proper reason, just as a ploy to scaremonger and to bully the staff. An attack on one employee is an attack on all employees, and neither the CWU nor any employee will stand for that in any way, shape or form.
In this country, we can send a letter for 58p to Orkney or Shetland, or to the Isle of Wight. That is the only duty that the company has. None of the private companies is legally obliged to deliver to every single address in this country. We want a level playing field, but the profit and the cream are taken away by the other companies. Royal Mail is modernising—it has been—but the workers deserve more.
Written Statements
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Spaceport Cornwall: First Launch of Satellites
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Grant Shapps)
Last night, Virgin Orbit attempted the first orbital launch from Spaceport Cornwall. Unfortunately, the launch was unsuccessful. We will work closely with Virgin Orbit as they investigate what caused the failure in the coming days and weeks. While a failed launch is disappointing, launching a spacecraft always carries significant risks. Despite this, the project has succeeded in creating a horizontal launch capability at Spaceport Cornwall, and we remain committed to becoming the leading provider of commercial small satellite launch in Europe by 2030, with vertical launches planned from Scotland in the next year.
[HCWS489]
Statutory Deadline for Planning Decision: Alternative Use Boston Projects Ltd
(1 year, 10 months 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 an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by Alternative Use Boston Projects Ltd for the construction and operation of an energy from waste facility at Boston in Lincolnshire.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Act to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it. The current statutory deadline for the decision on the Boston Alternative Energy Facility application is 10 January 2023.
I have decided to set a new deadline of no later than 6 July 2023 for deciding this application. This is to enable my Department to seek further information from the applicant and to ensure there is sufficient time to allow for consideration of this information by other interested parties.
The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS488]
Reform of Post-16 Qualifications
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Robert Halfon)
Today, I am notifying Parliament of the next stage in the Government’s review of post-16 qualifications at level 3 in England—the publication of new criteria for alternative academic and technical qualifications funded from 2025.
In July 2021, we published the Government response to the second stage consultation of the review of post-16 qualifications at level 3 and below. Here, we made clear our intentions to streamline the qualifications landscape, simplify choices for students and only fund qualifications that are high quality and lead to good progression outcomes. It is vitally important for social mobility to ensure that everyone, no matter their background, is able to access the education and skills opportunities which lead to good jobs.
The reforms are taking place in three stages.
In July 2022, we completed the first phase of streamlining the qualifications landscape by removing funding approval from around 5,500 qualifications at level 3 and below in England that had very low numbers or no new students enrolled on them.
By August 2025, we will also have removed funding approval from qualifications that overlap with our new, highly rigorous T-levels, so that T-levels have the space they need to flourish as the main technical route for 16 to 19-year-olds. In October 2022, we published details of the first 106 qualifications that will have funding approval removed from 1 August 2024 because they overlap with a T-level in Education and Childcare, Digital, or Construction and the Built Environment. Funding approval will also be removed from qualifications that overlap with the Health and Science T-levels and we will publish this list once the review of the outline content of those T-levels has concluded. Funding approval will be removed in August 2025 for qualifications which overlap with T-levels in waves 3 and 4—Legal, Finance and Accounting; Engineering and Manufacturing; Business and Administration; Hair and Beauty; Catering and Hospitality; Creative and Design; and Agriculture, Environmental and Animal Care. A provisional list of these qualifications will be published in spring 2023.
From August 2025, all alternative academic and technical qualifications in scope of the review will be required to demonstrate that they serve a clear and distinct purpose and meet new quality and funding criteria, irrespective of the T-level overlap assessment process. Details of the new approval process, which all qualifications at level 3 in scope of the review must go through in order to be publicly funded from 2025, are being published today. This includes full details of the types of qualifications and subjects that we will fund, and the criteria that awarding organisations must meet to secure funding approval.
For academic qualifications, this includes progression to higher education, evidence of demand and a clear statement of why the qualification is needed. Technical qualifications will be required to meet new occupational relevance and employer demand tests developed by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE). This will ensure that technical qualifications deliver the content that truly matters to employers, and that the skills system is simpler for learners, training providers and employers to navigate. All qualifications must also meet regulatory requirements set by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual).
Our reforms do not constitute a binary choice between T-levels and A-levels. We have listened to feedback and recognise the need for additional qualifications, including alternative qualifications such as some BTECs designed to be taken as part of a mixed study programme including A-levels. These alternative qualifications are an important part of how we will support diverse student needs and deliver skills that employers need for a productive future economy, in areas that A-levels and T-levels do not cover. In addition, the T-level Transition Programme provides a high-quality route on to T-levels, for students who would benefit from the additional study time and preparation that it will give them before they start their T-level.
The Government also recognise that there are still too many people who are being held back by poor maths. The Prime Minister has set out his intention that all students in England should study some form of maths to age 18, to ensure they are better equipped for the jobs of the future. Further detail on this measure will be set out at a later date.
Today’s announcement marks the start of the final stage of the reforms to post-16 qualifications and will give the education sector clarity on the shape of the future post-16 qualifications landscape.
I look forward to engaging with parliamentarians and colleagues in awarding bodies and further education as we implement these important reforms.
[HCWS490]
English Freeports
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
Today I am announcing a major milestone for the flagship UK freeports programme, with two further English freeports—in Plymouth, Solent and in Teesside—now fully up and running after receiving final Government approval. Each of these freeports will now receive £25 million of seed funding and potentially hundreds of millions in locally retained business rates to upgrade local infrastructure and stimulate regeneration. This is alongside a generous package of trade and innovation support for businesses locating there.
This significant milestone is an important step on the freeports journey and sends a clear message: the UK Government are backing these places as a key part of their economic strategy.
Freeports are at the heart of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. They will unlock much-needed investment into port communities and their hinterlands. This in turn will help these areas overcome the barriers holding them back and bring jobs and opportunity to some of the UK’s historically overlooked communities.
Freeports catalyse investment through a combination of tax reliefs on new economic activity, a special streamlined customs procedure, an ambitious programme of public investment, and wide-ranging support from the UK Government to help businesses trade, invest, and innovate.
Excellent progress has been made with delivery: investors can now take advantage of tax reliefs in all eight English freeports and are starting to do so, and we expect the remaining five English freeports to join Plymouth, Solent, and Teesside in receiving final approvals shortly.
This Government also remain committed to ensuring that all parts of the UK can reap the benefits of our freeports programme. We have recently concluded competitions for two green freeports in Scotland and a freeport in Wales, and we will announce the winning locations in due course. We also continue discussions with stakeholders in Northern Ireland about how best to deliver the benefits associated with freeports there.
[HCWS487]
House of Lords
Royal Assent
Tuesday 10th January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2023 View all Finance Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 30 November 2022 - (30 Nov 2022)
Business: Greenwashing
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howarth of Newport
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the practice of ‘greenwashing’ by businesses; and what steps, if any, they intend to take to tackle it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, green claims made by businesses should be clear and accurate and not mislead consumers, who are increasingly looking to make environmentally friendly choices. The Competition and Markets Authority and the Advertising Standards Authority have published guidance to help businesses to comply with the law when making environmental claims about their goods or services. If a business does not comply with consumer law, the CMA and other bodies, such as trading standards, can bring court proceedings.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, while many businesses are genuinely committed to the net-zero objective, should not there be zero tolerance when businesses puff their publicity and accounts with dishonest claims about their green credentials? Does the Minister accept that for those businesses self-regulation will not work, that tough regulation and penalties are needed to deal with these fraudulent practices, and that the Government must work urgently with international partners to establish standardised accounting rules, an end to bogus carbon offsets, rigour in the definition of ESG, and reliable and clear information for investors and consumers?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I understand the point that the noble Lord makes, but businesses do not self-regulate in this area. In September 2021, the Competition and Markets Authority published guidance on environmental claims on goods and services, to help businesses to understand how to communicate their green credentials while mitigating the risk of misleading consumers. The Advertising Standards Authority has also taken action against some businesses.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interest. Does the Minister accept that there is real pressure on productive agricultural land, particularly in Wales and Scotland, from the big businesses buying up such land and taking it out of production, so adding to food cost inflation? Does he accept that perpetual increased afforestation encroaching on productive land is not an acceptable answer, and that it needs land use that sustains food production in an environmentally acceptable manner?
Lord Callanan (Con)
That is a fascinating question, although I am not sure that what it has to do with the subject under discussion. However, it is a very real issue and certainly something that we need to keep under close examination, because we do not want productive land taken out of use.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Will my noble friend be able to give, now or later, an estimate of the cost of ESG reporting to British companies? The reason I ask is that an SEC commissioner recently stated that the cost to the 4,600 companies it regulates of providing ESG reporting is currently at $2 billion and expected to rise to $8 billion with the new regulations.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know that my noble friend is very interested in this important subject; we have discussed it before. The problem we have is that many businesses make environmental claims about their sustainability and that others publish information in their annual reports—often voluntarily; there is, in some respects, no legal obligation to do so—so the question is about how investors can get transferability across different companies and compare one company against another. There may be a case for some standardisation and regulations in this space, but of course we need to look at the business impacts.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the Cross Benches, followed by the Lib Dems and then Labour.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that if we are to take action on claims of greenwashing, we need clear criteria and standards against which to judge those claims? The Government have recognised that part of this is the need for a green taxonomy. Work has been done on this, yet it seems to have been paused. We were promised the results of the working party by the end of last year, so can he update us on progress on the green taxonomy? I declare my interests as in the register.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that we need some consistency on these matters. The work on a green taxonomy is being taken forward by the Treasury and as far as I am aware it is proceeding.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, last year the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that HSBC’s greenwash ads were not adequately qualified and left out material information about its greenhouse gas emissions. Does the Minister agree that a ticking off from the ASA after an ad has gone out is not a deterrent? Will he request the CMA to incorporate this into its green claims code so that financial penalties can be imposed if firms breach the rules repeatedly?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The ASA has taken action against a number of companies, including one that made green artificial grass, over their environmental claims. I think this is a very real deterrent to businesses repeating unfair advertising, but I know that the CMA is looking at a number of different sectors: it has already published an investigation into the fashion sector and is moving its investigations on to other areas of the economy as well.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned that the Competition and Markets Authority has issued its green claims code, under which it has the power to take errant companies to court. Have any actually been taken to court?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is right: the CMA published its guidance in September 2021. Enforcement of unfair claims and misleading advertising is a matter for trading standards. I am not aware of any claims that have been taken to court but, if there are any actions I can point him to, I will write to him.
Baroness Rock (Con)
My Lords, tenant farmers face acute risk of greenwashing, as landlords seek to take tenanted land back, to access public and private markets. The Rock review has already seen evidence of tenant farmers in England being served notices to quit for this purpose. What are the Government doing to ensure that we support our vital tenant farmers and do not lose tenanted land from delivering food and environmental outcomes?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend is right to point to this as an important issue. It does not fall within my purview as a BEIS Minister, but I will certainly find out the answer and write to her.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, green- washing is clearly a serious issue which, if not clamped down on, will seriously hinder progress towards net zero. We welcome the steps being taken to do this, such as green taxonomy, increased ESG reporting requirements and investment in product sustainability labels. All these measures should mean that communicating ESG credentials will become critical to companies, as well as compliance with legal requirements. All are steps in the right direction. Can the Minister outline the timeline for their implementation and what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the changes proposed?
Lord Callanan (Con)
There are a lot of questions in what the noble Baroness said, and there are a number of different aspects to this problem. The Advertising Standards Authority and the CMA are taking action, our net-zero strategy contained several commitments around eco-labelling, and we are working with the Financial Conduct Authority to introduce a sustainable investment label. Those are all proceeding at the moment.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, it is well known that food, agriculture and deforestation account for a very large amount of greenhouse gases and biodiversity loss, yet it is impossible for a consumer to tell when buying a product exactly what its biodiversity impact or carbon content is. All big food companies rail against putting this on labels, on the grounds that it would take up too much space. That is fair enough; they can put it online, where nerds such as me can look it up to see whether it is okay. What are the Government doing to make labelling correct in terms of those two factors? Have they at least started a consultation and is there any news on when they might implement it?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness referred to looking at information online. I am sure she will be pleased to know that the CMA has launched a website to help consumers to identify and understand genuine environmental claims about the products and services that they are purchasing. It is designed to encourage them to ask themselves simple questions about whether they can believe the claims that manufacturers are making or not.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I was going to mention Amazon as a prime example of a company that uses greenwashing, but the Government are also very much a greenwashing organisation. They constantly laud their environmental principles, but then the Prime Minister, for example, hops into a private jet to go to Leeds instead of taking the train like the rest of us. Does the Minister agree that the Government need to correct some of their greenwashing?
Lord Callanan (Con)
There are things we could all do. The noble Baroness talks about the Prime Minister taking jets; she might want to talk to one of her Green council colleagues who, I believe, flew up to COP 26 in Glasgow. There are always improvements we can all make in our personal behaviour.
Prisons: Chaplaincy Service
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the working of the prison chaplaincy service; and in particular, the extent to which representatives of all faiths are included in the discussions of the Prison and Probation Service’s Chaplaincy Council.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so declare my interest as director of the Sikh Prison Chaplaincy Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, since 1996 the chaplaincy council has helped deliver prison chaplaincy based on multiple faiths and beliefs. However, it no longer reflects the breadth of faith and belief of those in prison or on probation. We therefore propose to replace the chaplaincy council with a chaplaincy faith and belief forum representing all faiths. We will consult widely on that proposal and related reforms, including the smaller faiths in particular.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his Answer, but until three years ago the chaplaincy council was working well. Why replace something when it is not broken? A prison chaplaincy council representing the six major faiths has not met for some three years, with Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists being excluded from policy discussions and discriminated against in grant support, visiting and educational hours and career opportunities. Widening the prison chaplaincy council will worsen that situation. Why are our concerns and complaints consistently ignored by those charged with the promotion of inclusion and diversity, who feel that all they need to do to fulfil their remit is write pronouns after their names?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
First, I pay a personal tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Singh, for all that he has done over many years for prison chaplaincy and for his tireless efforts on behalf of the Sikh community. I mean that most sincerely. However, respectfully, I do not entirely agree with the thrust of his question. In the Government’s view, the chaplaincy council needs to be brought up to date to make sure that all faiths are properly represented and, in particular, to make sure that the faith and belief advisers, who assist the Prison Service, particularly in the appointment of chaplains, and who are very often on the council, are remunerated and appointed transparently and consistently so that there is no question of any difference of treatment in that regard. It is perfectly true that there has been some disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Singh, in the past—that I accept—but I hope that the reforms that we are in the process of consulting on will remove any scope there may be for disagreement on the way forward.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I pay tribute to those who have done so much in this area. The Minister has again used the words “all faiths”. I wonder if he will include humanists in the consultation, because there are many who would welcome chaplaincy from a humanist understanding as well.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, bearing in mind that the whole purpose of prison is rehabilitation and that chaplains have a very important role to play in that context, can my noble and learned friend tell me how many prison chaplains of each faith there are at the moment, and whether he is satisfied that this number is sufficient to accomplish the very important task before them?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, there are approximately 1,200 prison chaplains overall and approximately 20 chaplains of the Sikh faith. I do not have other figures in front of me. Sikhs make up less than 1% of the prison population, which is extremely admirable, and the number of Sikh chaplains in particular is well out of proportion to the number of Sikhs who are unfortunately in prison.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, when deciding on the policy of the Prison and Probation Service with regards to its pastoral service, the views of all faiths should be taken into account. I was surprised to learn from my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon, that this is sometimes not the case. I sincerely hope that the Government take these views into account and look into this matter urgently.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that some 60% of our managing prison chaplains are now Muslims, while only some 17% of our prisoners share that faith? What do the Government think this imbalance may be doing for the promotion of Islamism in our prisons, and what do they feel they should do about it?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I have no reason to suppose that the Muslim chaplains in the chaplaincy service, where they are appointed, are doing anything other than providing multifaith belief and support to the whole of that prison population.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, on Christmas Day, I was pleased to be able to visit my local prison and young offenders’ institute in Chelmsford, where I was taking a service. I had several conversations with both prisoners and members of staff who expressed concern about ensuring continued support for those who are leaving prison and re-entering the community. As the work of multifaith community chaplaincy and indeed the Welcome Directory continues to be developed to support those leaving prison, can the Minister say what discussions there have been, if any, regarding possible funding support from HMG?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, the Government already support and fund the Welcome Directory. That resource enables prisoners to seek help to resettle safely in the community. Each probation region may commission and fund local services, including community chaplaincy services. The Government will keep these funding arrangements under review, in view of the importance of the rehabilitation of prisoners in the community.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Over a decade’s worth of Conservative government has led to a failing prison system, with failing rehabilitation. To change this, we need an evidence-led, trauma-informed approach to rehabilitation. Prisons now contend with a revolving door of staff, with constant recruitment failing to fill the vacancies across the estate. This is a crisis made by the Government, because of cuts and a lack of investment in the justice system. What will the Minister do to retain experienced staff and recruit new staff?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government can point with some pride to a fall in reoffending rates in recent years and an extensive programme of recruitment for not only prison staff but the probation service. In terms of the discussion today, which is about chaplaincy, we look forward to greater involvement of chaplains in sentencing planning, resettlement planning and the steps taken when prisoners are released to ensure that their release is successful and that they do not reoffend.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for my earlier overenthusiasm. Prison chaplaincy provides a very valuable pastoral and counselling service for all prisoners and staff in the Prison Service. Chaplains are forbidden from proselytising and have a general responsibility to help all who seek help and advice. However, given that according to the 2021 census 37% of the population have no faith at all, has the time not now come for non-religious pastoral carers to be included in the new chaplaincy, faith and belief forum?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, it is the Government’s intention to see that that happens.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has touched on prisons and probation, but where does the role of chaplaincy sit within the “One HMPPS” programme for achieving greater alignment between prison and probation and a whole-sentence approach? There has in the past been limited joint working between probation staff and prison chaplains, even at key points in the sentence, such as when planning for release. Also, prison chaplaincy sits within HMPPS and community chaplaincy is carried out by the voluntary sector, independent of government.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government seek greater alignment between prison and probation. The chief probation officer will be a member of the new council of faith and belief. A new pilot will see prison chaplains attending approved premises to which released prisoners go and there will be further collaborative work with the Community Chaplaincy Association.
Public Service Ombudsman for England
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to create a new single Public Service Ombudsman for England (and reserved UK matters) with modernised powers in line with the Venice Principles of international best practice standards, endorsed by the United Kingdom in United Nations resolution A/RES/75/186.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have no plans at this time to create a new single public service ombudsman for England. The Government are supportive of the ombudsman institutions and the general principles of the Venice Commission, and will consider specific proposals on ombudsman reform. We do not currently view large-scale ombudsman reform as a priority for this Parliament.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, that is a very disappointing response. We have 20 ombudsmen. It is often very confusing for members of the public taking a complaint to find which one applies to them, particularly where complaints straddle boundaries between, say, health and local government—on a delayed discharge from the NHS into social care, for instance. Putting them all together, alongside the local government and housing ombudsmen, would ensure a much more co-ordinated response and provide much better value for money. Will the Government reconsider this?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The trouble is that combining the existing public services ombudsmen—there are several, as the noble Lord explained—would be a complex and substantial undertaking. It could lead to a reduction in the quality of service for people relying on that service during the transition period, and staff would worry about their futures. I am not sure quite what just putting them together would achieve. The key thing is to have expertise and effective ombudsman decisions, which we have increasingly seen in recent years.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I had not realised until I went into the background of this Question that we have 20 different ombudsmen in the United Kingdom. Nor had I realised that one ombudsman deals with the health service and another one deals with social care, which seems to be not very well organised. Nor had I realised, furthermore, that you have to go through your MP if you want to go to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Does the Minister not think that there are a number of problems within the existing set-up that the Government ought at least to look at again?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As I said in my opening remarks, some changes we are able to look at, and we have made improvements. On the MP filter, which the noble Lord refers to, it is designed to help complainants. MPs are able to make confidential inquiries with officials or Ministers and resolve issues quickly. In addition to referring individual cases to be investigated by the ombudsman, they can raise issues publicly in the House of Commons. The ombudsman has a democratic element. It is a parliamentary creature and I think it helps to hold the Executive to account. Of course, the PACAC takes a great deal of interest and is responsible for the appointment of the ombudsman, who is a parliamentary officer.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the view of the peer review of the PHSO by the International Ombudsman Institute, completed in November last year, that the compulsory MP filter for complaints to the PHSO in his capacity as parliamentary ombudsman is a breach of the requirement of the Venice principles that people raising complaints should have a right to free and unhindered access to the ombudsman. The evidence is that some 88% of people who mistakenly come direct to the PHSO in his capacity as parliamentary ombudsman do not return with their complaint when they realise that they need to go to their MP first. Should not the MP filter be made optional as soon as possible?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think I have already commented on the MP filter. We do think that the international principles are important, but we also need to make sure that the existing system, which focuses very well on individuals, is not undermined. I was looking at the website today and I was struck by how this does not look only at big and well-known cases but at individual ones; for example, a man died days before his wedding to his partner of 40 years due to a hospital failing, and remedies were put forward by the ombudsman. The MP filter, a democratic element, really is important in the complaints process.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
But, my Lords, MPs are not able to do that sort of inquiry when they get something from a patient; all they can do is say, “Yes, I agree with it”, and forward it on. What we know, as the noble and learned Lord said, is that nine out of 10 people who first go to the ombudsman and are then told they cannot do it without an MP supporting them go no further. How does the Minister explain to those nine out of 10 that they have no access to redress for anything that has gone wrong?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
On the health area, there was an extensive debate during the passage of the Health and Care Act last year, and I will reflect further on the point the noble Baroness has made and come back to her. However, in some areas such as the DWP there is of course an independent case examiner, which also helps with the flow. We are talking about big numbers here already. I was looking at the figures: there were 5,330 PHSO cases in 2020-21, so it is important that we find a way of resolving complaints, not necessarily through the ombudsman. You need a combination of the two systems.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, surely moving to one overarching body would save substantial money in terms of sharing HR and administrative costs and other overheads. No one is suggesting that there should be an immediate transition, but surely a gradual transition would make a lot of sense.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
One always hears these arguments in relation to agencies; for example, we put some together to form the Environment Agency. Although there were many pluses, there was also a transition. I remember being in the Business Department when the Department for International Trade was split off. There is a transition cost, which was the point I was making at the beginning. We are talking about a Government with a lot of priorities. As my noble friend says, if we are going to have reform, this is not an immediate priority, but that does not mean that we are not looking at possibilities to improve these things all the time. That is very much what the Parliamentary Ombudsman himself is always trying to do.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think I heard the Minister say that the Government have made improvements to the overall system. Can she tell us what those improvements are and how we might recognise them?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Partly as a result of work by PACAC, the ombudsman has improved transparency. There are now summaries of decisions on the website in a user-friendly form. The website shows how people who have problems can apply to the ombudsman or go to other sources if they are not eligible to do so. It also allows us to keep up to date with complaints. As I said, the reporting style is more user-friendly, and that is important with complaints.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, this is about public confidence in our public services. If the system was working as well as the Minister seems to want to suggest, public confidence in our public services would be improving. Can she name a single public service, such as health, education or policing, where public confidence has improved over the past 13 years?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am tempted to say that I will write to the noble Baroness. Obviously, there are surveys and things that I do not have to hand today because I came to talk about the ombudsman, not public services in the round, but there have been considerable improvements in many public services for business and for citizens. Clearly, the Covid epidemic has caused enormous problems, which have led to difficulties with public services.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As the noble Lord says, the war in Ukraine has caused problems as well. We also face a challenging demography in this country. All these things have an effect, but this Government are determined to improve public services. That is a very important objective and I am trying to help with it from the Cabinet Office; I am trying not to make difficulties worse by, for example, inspiring changes that will potentially cause substantial difficulties for the flow of casework, which is so important. I come from a business background. Dealing with complaints well is very important.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, is it also possible to look at the fact that, if you have a financial complaint, you can wait over a year to get it sorted? I know a number of people who are finding that the financial problem they brought is very pressing, and waiting over a year is not an answer.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Lord always talks good sense. I agree with his point in relation to the public sector ombudsman, but he is talking about financial services, which are the subject of private financial services ombudsmen; they are different and operate through the regulatory system. So there is a mixture of public service ombudsmen and, in some sectors, private sector ombudsmen; they deal with things in a different way, such as through membership, fees and so on.
Excess Deaths in Private Homes
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the reasons behind ONS figures showing excess deaths in private homes in England and Wales in the week ending 23 December 2022 were 37.5 per cent higher than the five-year average for the same period.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
My Lords, while the detailed assessment is not yet available, it is likely that a combination of factors has contributed to an increase in the number of deaths at home, including high flu prevalence, the ongoing challenge of Covid-19, and health conditions such as heart disease and diabetes. On 12 January, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities will update its excess deaths report, providing further insight into causes that have contributed to excess deaths.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, while a patient may choose to die at home, the spike in home deaths rings considerable alarm bells. Analysis suggests that record ambulance and emergency delays could be the explanation for a significant number of many more sudden deaths that are occurring at home. Can the Minister point to any government analysis, whether published or ongoing, to explain this unexpected increase in home deaths and a potential link with these delays? If there is no such analysis, how will the Government know how to overcome this shocking state of affairs?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. This is an important question, and I had the opportunity to speak to Sir Chris Whitty on this very subject this morning. The statistics show that, over the course of the year, home deaths have increased by about 22%—a lot of that through personal choice, because it was happening over the summer and earlier in the year. Sir Chris told me that a lot of factors are in play at the moment. Flu is a clear example. There were about 1,000 more deaths in the week mentioned than would normally be expected. The cold snap came early, creating more cardiovascular deaths. However, clearly, the challenges are also a component part, which is why we made yesterday’s announcements about the further measures.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, we are fortunate to have in the Office for National Statistics a source of trusted data to inform our policy deliberations. It provided essential data about excess deaths during the pandemic, and we should equally reflect on what this data says about the health of our nation post-pandemic. There is clearly a range of potential factors that could have led to the excess deaths, as the Minister has outlined, but it is really in the public interest to test all those hypotheses and establish any causality. Can the Minister commit the department to carrying out research, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked for, into any potential link between the pressures that we know about on the ambulance service and the excess deaths at home?
Lord Markham (Con)
Again, I spoke further to Sir Chris Whitty exactly on this. He writes an annual report on this. We will be doing so in the same way and looking at all the factors.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
Can the Minister tell the House what happened to cancer diagnosis and referral times during the course of 2022, and what the prognosis is for these crucial measures over the coming year? If he does not have the statistics to hand, can he write to me and place a record in the Library?
Lord Markham (Con)
I will happily provide the detail on that. We all know about the 62-day challenge. That has been the focus of Ministers ensuring that we are bearing down on that number, so that an increasing proportion are treated within that period.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, some of these numbers plainly reflect the diagnoses and the treatments that did not happen during the pandemic, as my noble friend the Minister has suggested. Given that we now know that the OECD country with the lowest excess death figure during those two years was Sweden, does my noble friend the Minister believe that, knowing what we now know, we would have locked down?
Lord Markham (Con)
My noble friend makes a challenging point. This will be a subject of the inquiry, on which I look forward to hearing more.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the elements here may be the lack of support to family carers, who are often the element most involved in providing care at the last stages of life, and in particular the lack of willingness to engage with family carers, who are the people who know most about the condition? I have lost count of the number of family carers who have said to me, “They just didn’t want to know my side of this element.”
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. We have spoken before about this in the House. I agree with the general point that family carers, probably more than anyone, have great knowledge to bear, and so absolutely that should be an important component.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, it is blindingly obvious that lockdown has had a huge impact on the number of excess deaths. Indeed, many people warned of that consequence at the time. I will put it politely: at that time, the Government showed a deep lack of interest in the points being made. We are now talking about excess deaths in the hundreds of thousands, quite apart from the extraordinary impact that it has had on mental health, particularly for young people. Could he please promise that the Government will take every step, and then go a step further, to ensure that the inquiry into this by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, deals with what we got wrong as well as the many things that we got right, to make sure that we are properly prepared for a future challenge if it should ever arise?
Lord Markham (Con)
I totally agree with my noble friend. We all know that it was an unprecedented time, and we learned lessons all the way through: we were much more resistant to locking down as time went on, for all the good reasons mentioned by my noble friend. Yes, that absolutely needs to be a key feature of the report.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will agree that a very important point in all of this has been the restrictions now in force on primary healthcare services and domiciliary services. We have left housebound people to their fate for a great deal of this time. Is the Minister willing to look at these matters?
Lord Markham (Con)
It is a whole-system issue, as I have often mentioned in this House, that takes into account some of the elements of home care, and very much the social care and dom care elements. We know that that is very much a factor in the 13,000 beds that we need to free up through things such as dom care, so yes.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, excess deaths started to rise in June of last year—at the same time, interestingly, as long waits on trolleys in A&Es started. These have got worse as A&E trolley waits have increased. What did Professor Whitty say about that statistic? If nothing, will there be a review into the waits on trolleys in A&E as a possible cause of excess deaths?
Lord Markham (Con)
This whole area is all about the number of beds and the occupancy. This analysis was done around the October plan for patients, where we said that we were going to put in 7,000 beds and a £500 million discharge fund. What was clear, as per the announcement yesterday, was that the high level of Covid beds—9,500—and the over 5,000 flu beds were far more than any of us estimated. That increased bed occupancy means that we have had to look to increase supply again and at the number of discharges to social care. That is the root cause of the problem. That is why we acted again yesterday to provide even more care in those places.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, although my noble friend quite rightly emphasised the particularly concerning figures in a particular week, this is a reflection of a longer-term trend that has taken place. Does he accept that a particular concern is the high number of non-Covid-related deaths during the last summer? Normally, you expect to see a dip during the summer, and it simply did not take place this time. Is he seized with the urgency of dealing with this issue?
Lord Markham (Con)
I am definitely seized with the urgency. I was able to speak to Sir Chris Whitty about a number of those, including last summer. The heatwave was a factor then: we had over 2,500 excess deaths caused by the heatwave over those couple of weeks. There were multiple factors. You have heard me say, again from Sir Chris Whitty, that cardiovascular disease is a real concern: for those three years that people missed going to their primary care appointments, they did not get their blood pressure checked in the same way, and we did not get the early warning indicators. That is another thing that you will hear me talk further about, so that we can get ahead of the curve, because those are the areas of excess death that we risk in future.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, have we not forgotten something? When we blame all sorts of factors for these excess deaths, have we forgotten that there are 44 million people in this country suffering from the disease called obesity and all the complications that arise from that? This means that these people are moving inevitably to a premature death from a variety of very unpleasant diseases.
Lord Markham (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point that prevention is a key part of this agenda, as is the role that we all take in our individual health and well-being. Obesity is included as a key part of this as well. We need a four-pronged approach that tackles the things that we as individuals need to address as well, to make our own lifestyles healthier.
NHS Winter Pressures
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, from this Statement one might conclude that the NHS is facing challenges but that, overall, things are moving in the right direction. This could not be further from the truth and does not reflect how dire the situation has become. It is clear that the Government have failed to grasp what everyone else has managed to: that there is a deeply urgent crisis in health and social care, where irrevocable damage is being done to people’s lives.
While on the one hand the Government are bringing in legislation that will mean that NHS staff can be sacked for exercising their right to strike, on the other they are refusing to conduct meaningful pay negotiations that could end the strikes in the health service. Indeed, they only thought to convene an NHS recovery forum this week, when we are already half way through the winter.
It is increasingly becoming clear that the sporadic pots of money proposed as sticking plasters for various pinch points are not being deployed quickly enough. For instance, the £500 million emergency adult social care discharge fund was announced in September, but some half of it still has not yet reached the front line. The NHS has now said that it is too late to make a difference to the winter crisis. Has the Minister identified what is stopping the funding coming through? What plans are in place to deal with this so that funding can promptly get to where it is needed? It is no good making announcements and then not following through.
Nor is it easy enough to work out whether funding is new or recycled money. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify this now and in the future. The nature of this Government’s approach to funding health and care—half a billion pounds here one week, another few million there—gives the impression of knee-jerk reactions rather than strategic policy-making. In fact, the approach is so last minute that, after making the announcements in yesterday’s Statement, an extra £50 million was suddenly found and a further press release was issued.
Yet we know that prevention is better than cure in every sense. A GP appointment costs the taxpayer much less than a desperate patient turning up at A&E. Is the Minister content with this eternal hole plugging? What plans are there to move towards a more holistic and sensible long-term approach, including plans to fix primary care so that patients can see the GP they want in the manner they choose? What plans are there to recruit the care workers needed to care for patients once they have been discharged from hospitals, and to pay them fairly so that we do not lose them to other employers? As ever, where is the comprehensive and detailed workforce plan to train the doctors, nurses and health professionals that the NHS so desperately needs?
Underlying this has been an abject failure to make the social care system sustainable. Half a million people are waiting for social care assessments. They clearly are at major risk of having to be admitted to hospital as a result. How will the Minister work to prevent this, especially when care workers are leaving in droves to work in retail and other sectors? Is there a government target for when the number of people waiting for assessments, often in pain and discomfort, might finally start to come down?
The Statement cites Covid, flu, strep A, scarlet fever, and even CQC inspections as reasons why the NHS is under such strain. Is this not surely passing the buck, when other countries face similar challenges and yet are not gripped by such chronic crises every single winter?
In the context of an ageing population where demand on the system will only increase, is the Minister willing to assure your Lordships’ House that a sustainable social care solution will finally be produced before the next winter hits? The NHS Confederation has responded to yesterday’s Statement by referencing the obvious contained in the Government’s words on the need for
“the right wraparound care for those being discharged from hospital”.
The NHS Confederation also says that
“after a decade of austerity neither the social care sector nor the government are in any position to ensure it.”
Does the Minister agree with that analysis: that it is the choices of this Government over the past 12 years that have had a direct and devastating impact on the current delays? It is this fundamental that the Statement has failed to address.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the fact that the Government are making a Statement, as it is abundantly clear to everyone that we have a crisis on our hands, and we on these Benches have been calling for this to be recognised as a national major incident. In that context, will the Minister clarify the status of the NHS recovery forum that was announced with great fanfare last week? Was it a one-off, or will it be meeting regularly and taking ownership of this crisis? If it is not the NHS recovery forum, what group within government will be taking us through the rest of the winter? This requires daily, serious leadership at the highest levels in government.
I have three questions on the specific measures outlined in the Statement. First, the Government have told us about the block-booking of care home beds, which should provide some immediate relief for hospitals, but they are much less clear on how they plan to increase domiciliary care so that people who can and should be in their own homes do not get stuck in care homes unnecessarily. The last thing we want to do is to move people out of one inappropriate care setting into another one, and domiciliary care remains the key to providing the best care for the vast majority of people who need neither hospital nor permanent care home residency. Can the Minister offer us any assurances on what the Government intend to do about domiciliary care provision?
Secondly, the Statement referred to the new NHS system control centres that will be in each integrated care board area, and which are a welcome development. There is published information about the data that will go into these new centres, but no information about what the centres themselves will make available to the public. Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful for people to know much more about the pressures on the NHS in their local area through these NHS system control centres publishing regular updates with as much information as they can provide to help patients make informed choices, with full knowledge of where the blockages are in the system?
Finally, the Statement referred to the use of artificial intelligence systems to help release patients sooner and track their progress through hospitals. There have been recent press reports about Welsh hospitals using tools developed by a British company called Faculty AI to improve patient discharges. Can the Minister add any insights into how these and similar technologies are going to be tested and deployed in England? I know that nothing is a silver bullet, but the reports suggest that they could make a significant difference to discharging people more efficiently and quickly. If that is so, we do not need to wait to deploy these technologies, and should be getting on with it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments. As I mentioned in answering the previous Question, this is a reflection, from our part, of trying to understand the situation. We did some plans in October and looked at demand and supply, and that led us to make the announcements about the 7,000 extra beds and the £500 million adult social care discharge fund. It was clear to us that the bed occupancy issue was going to be at those danger points, and that was the plan.
Then, of course, as with any plan, you amend and review it all the time. Over the last few weeks of December, with the onset of flu beforehand, it became clear that we had higher levels of bed occupancy than we had planned for at that time because we had 7,000 or so extra beds taken up by flu while, at the same time, still requiring higher levels of Covid care than planned. It became clear from all this that the bed occupancy levels were still too high to be comfortable. This was causing the knock-on impact on the flow across the whole system, backing right up into the A&E wait times. That is why, very responsibly, we looked at the latest data, planned, and realised that we needed to do more. That was very much the components of the plan.
In answer to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, some of those short-term measures were about bringing in extra adult social care funding packages and, candidly, looking within every area of our budgets at what we really needed to spend over the rest of the year and at what we could prioritise. We managed to make some in-year savings through reducing headcount, particularly in admin and central areas, and then looked to redeploy that to make sure it was going to the front line.
As well as that, we looked at things such as the expandable modular space. This goes back to the flight control systems, which I would recommend to anyone. It is well worth a visit to Maidstone, where you will see what we plan for the longer term and what we are looking to do across the system in time for next winter. It became very clear there that, because it has the data, it can manage demand and supply. It sees the incoming from the ambulances; it sees the bed situation; it sees those people who are getting close to be ready for discharge. It is working with clinicians to say, “Actually, we’ve got some incoming and we need to free up that space. Let’s get the social care places ready. Let’s have transport ready and clean the bed quickly.” It is absolutely those micro-improvements and the Team Sky cycling-type approach that address it. AI comes in very much as part of that; you can speed up the flow all the time. It is not silver bullet stuff, but it is about looking at those micro-improvements as you go through it. That is very much the background to all this.
Dom care is an important aspect of that as well. I went through the stats with the team today, which said that of the 13,000 people ready for discharge, probably only 3% should require social care in the long term, and the other 97% should be in a home environment. Some of them might need a few weeks, which is where those care packages come in, and a lot of them need dom care, but 97% of them should not be in care going forward. That is why we need to focus these things towards that. That is the thinking behind this.
The modular space is an important component of this. Look at Maidstone again; it has looked very carefully at the patient flows and at where you can have same-day emergency care and get people out again so that they never have to go into a hospital. But you need extra space to do that. We have made this available so that the hospitals can decide where they most need that expandable space—whether it is pre-A&E, when they are finished in A&E and waiting in a decent space for a bed to come free, or step-down or discharge areas. It is about providing that flexibility and putting it in place quickly for them all.
What we were trying to do here was show flexibility and be fleet of foot to be able to course correct as time goes on; to put our hands up and notice when things were difficult and more challenging because bed occupancy was higher than expected—as I say, due to flu, Covid and other factors—and put in the measures to address them. That is exactly what we are doing in the short term.
In the longer term, next year—not that many people would say that nine or 10 months away is the longer term—we need to make sure that adult social care has further funding, as the House has heard me say many times. There will be a substantial increase next year, up to £1.7 billion, and a substantial increase the year after, of up to 20%. With flight control systems, expandable modular care and the rollout of virtual wards, we have a number of things that, on their own, are not a silver bullet, but, by putting them all together, you will start to get the changes and improvements that we expect to see. I say unashamedly that, if there are other facilities in the independent sector that we can make use of, be it making more use of pharmacies or expanding virtual wards, then we should do so.
I am sure there will be more questions as we go on in this debate, but I hope your Lordships can see that we have tried to respond to the challenges through a range of measures that we believe will make a difference. At the same time, we must be open to the need to do more; we will need to add more things and course correct as time goes on.
Lord Patel (CB)
The Minister may not agree, but the NHS is in crisis. He may say that the situation is “challenging”, but it could not be more challenging. Although infection rates related to Covid, flu and other infections may have exacerbated the situation, the genesis of the crisis is not of today’s making. It has been in the making for years. It is related to lack of capacity. Does he agree that the emergency measures now being put in place are not likely to work? If they are not likely to work, what is plan B? Importantly, what is the long-term plan to ensure that this does not continue into the spring, summer or next winter?
Lord Markham (Con)
I absolutely think these measures will improve the situation; I would not be putting them forward if I did not believe that. At the same time, just as we put out plans in October and are amending them now, I will continue to amend our plans. I think that is a flexible, responsible approach: you have a plan, you adapt that plan, you invest and you continue to improve. That is what we will continue to see and do; we will see those improvements go through this year and into the next.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentioned pharmacies in his response, which clearly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the crisis that is going on in the independent pharmacy sector. They are closing at an alarming rate, yet they are the front line of the NHS, with record numbers of people coming to see them for free medical advice because they cannot get in to see their GP. There is a very serious crisis in the independent pharmacy sector, which is vital for healthcare. I have had many meetings, I have had letters, and I have got a campaign going in the media. It is clear from the responses that the department does not have a clue about the extent of the crisis and the closure of these independent pharmacies. Something needs to be done before they all close.
Lord Markham (Con)
I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend that the pharmacies are the front line. We realise that they have been underutilised in the past. Actually, the plan of using them more for patients will put more funding their way, which I hope will support them, just as allocating Covid vaccinations to many pharmacies provided support. I hope my noble friend will see that this plan should add to the viability of a number of pharmacies by putting more business their way. They are a crucial part of the front line.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, this focus on the number of hospital beds may be at the wrong end. It is much more fruitful to think about why staff are so dissatisfied and unhappy that they wish to leave and do so in droves. We have to do more to improve the morale of the nursing and medical professions and, in particular, those who work in the community—the care workers. We are losing them in great numbers; they are not coping. The reason is partly their pay, and we must pay them a reasonable rate, but it is also that they are completely disillusioned as people do not take them seriously. They do not have a professional qualification or a proper training programme. They do not have the possibility of career progression. We must do more to encourage them and ensure that they have a satisfactory career. If we do, we could possibly get more patients out of those beds that were building up, and perhaps help reduce the queues of ambulances.
Lord Markham (Con)
I agree that we need a whole-system approach. Workforce is a key part of that, including the adult social care workforce. Again, as all noble Lords did, I welcome the advent of the agreement to do a workforce plan, which needs to take all these factors into account. We need to make sure that it is an attractive place to work, and that people see it as a career progression—and that it is modular so that you can start in social care and, if you want to, progress into other parts of the health service.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA and vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Adult Social Care. Nearly three years ago, the Government created Nightingale hospitals, which were much vaunted and had millions spent on them. Virtually all of them were useless because there was no staffing available for them at short notice. I listened to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, about the short, medium and long-term workforce plan. We are now in emergency time: there are 160,000 social care vacancies and 40,000 nursing vacancies, which includes those in social care. How is this unblocking of beds going to be staffed and by when?
Lord Markham (Con)
Obviously, prior to this, we were in touch with the adult social care sector to make sure that there was that capacity within the system for it. We have been assured that the capacity exists, but we wholeheartedly agree that we need to recruit the staff to fill those vacancies, which is why we have taken measures to recruit internationally as well as in the domestic recruitment programme. Those are all key components of the longer-term plan to solve this issue.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my declared interest as chairman of the King’s Fund. The Statement made yesterday in the other place refers to a primary care recovery plan. It is well recognised that the hospital system is not sustainable if primary care cannot discharge its important gatekeeper function. Is the Minister able to confirm that, as part of that plan, there will be a radical review of options that might be adopted to ensure that primary care can deliver its important function?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, this is very much the focus of my colleague Minister O’Brien. I think it is understood that as many as half of the people who turn to up to A&E could have been looked after by the primary care system, so a lot of the pressures caused are as a result of that. It is absolutely a whole-system problem; many of the issues at the front end are about the GPs and at the back end they are about adult social care, which is why we need to address the whole system.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, last month, I had the dubious privilege of staying at one of the Minister’s hospitals. I was struck by the sclerotic way in which decisions were taken. It seems that the whole premium is on safety rather than looking after the patient. I would ask that the department looks into the way in which decisions are made, because I found far too often that a decision was made on the basis of what was safest. The multidisciplinary team, as it was called, was basically there to deflect anyone who wanted to do anything very adventurous. Will the Minister start looking, maybe in selected hospitals, at ways in which the decision-making and care process can be speeded up and made less sclerotic?
Lord Markham (Con)
I have seen very good examples of where that works. You have clinicians in the room with the data—the management and bed information. They make decisions according to the flow and number of people who they see are going to need a bed from the ambulances and the A&E situation, and the number who are ready to release. You have clinicians united with the information to make good decisions. Those are the best. The idea with the longer-term plan is to make sure those “best” have the tools in terms of the flight control system and have management processes in place so that they can adopt and follow best practice. It is key to what we are looking to make sure we have in place in time for next year, as the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, mentioned.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister replied to my Written Question on 5 January about commercial companies promoting strep A tests. The Answer said that these are “not currently recommended” by NICE
“for individuals aged five years old and over … with a sore throat”
and that UKHSA is conducting a
“bedside review of existing antigen-based lateral flow devices”
to
“identify the tests that are most likely to perform well”.
Given that, can the Minister explain why I have a number of emails from DAM Health headed “Concerned about strep A? Order your home test kit today. Only £12.99 per test kit. Quick and reliable results within minutes”? Can the Minister truly put his hand on his heart and say there is sufficient regulation and oversight of private testing companies, and indeed the broader private health sector? Is it not profiteering from the crisis in the NHS, potentially damaging the NHS and putting more pressure on NHS services?
Lord Markham (Con)
First, I declare an interest in this space. As many noble Lords will know, I set up a Covid testing company which never did any business towards the Government; I am very pleased to say that it served only the private sector. I am disposing of it as part of my obligations as a Minister. As the question relates to testing, I am quite keen to put that on the record.
Secondly, I would say “absolutely”. Dare I say it, but the reason my company was so successful is that we set the very highest standards according to the regulators. That is why we were able to win the crème de la crème—the Formula 1s and Wimbledons of the world. I cannot speak for other companies which may not be taking that high level of support, but there is absolutely a role for the regulator to make sure that only effective tests are marketed and those which are not effective should not.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister—I hate to say this—will recognise that, too often, it feels that the Government have no institutional memory, have no ability to learn from what has happened in the past and keep trying to reinvent the wheel while the wheels are spinning away long before they get anywhere near. The King’s Fund recently published a report on how the last Labour Government brought down waiting lists. That report shows that you do not just have to shout about it; you have to put in place all the different steps, including the right financial flow.
From all that has been said today, it is clear that the right flow is to encourage more people into social care work and encourage and enable them to do more serious, high-level work like urine testing. The Government have not even begun to think about this. Until financial support for the whole flow and the financial incentives to change the things the Government need to change are there, and that is understood by Ministers, we will not get it. It is not enough to say, “We’re putting another £15 million or £50 million into this, that or the other”, without making sure that you know how it is going to be spent and that people are going to be there to deliver it.
Lord Markham (Con)
I have said before in this Chamber —and I will say it again—that we should be learning all lessons. I like to think that, three months into my role, I am learning some of those lessons. The noble Baroness will see that we have taken some backwards steps on the use of the independent sector, which, again, was pioneered 15 or 20 years ago, but hopefully we will move forward again. I unashamedly say that we can learn from those things. I have spoken to some colleagues from the noble Baroness’s side of the House, and will continue to, because I will adopt anything that works, and I agree that payment by results is one of those things. We can speak after these questions; my door is definitely open on those matters.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I have the privilege to chair the NHS national community nursing plan clinical reference group. We meet on a regular basis and look at how community nurses can keep people out of hospital and get people home from hospital. We have heard very little about that today. Can I have five or 10 minutes with the Minister at some stage to bring him up to speed on the work that is going on?
Lord Markham (Con)
As with my answer to the previous question, I look forward to that meeting and learning everything we can. I will repeat the statistics on that subject that struck me most: of those 13,000 people who are fit to be discharged, we think that only 3% need to be in social care in the long term; 97% could be at home, which is the best and most cost-effective place for them. We need to ensure that the support is in place to ensure that that option exists.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a nurse and as a new appointment to the NHS England board as a non-executive director. There are two things missing from this discussion. First, there has been no reference to people waiting for mental health support. How can we ensure that people in mental health crisis are moved rapidly out of busy A&Es to be supported in quieter environments? There is a very good example across the road, at St Thomas’ Hospital, which is helping the A&E. Secondly, it is high time that we seriously consider giving full-time contracts to care workers in domiciliary services, because, as soon as somebody goes into hospital, the care worker’s hours are cut and, although they know that individual, they very rarely get reallocated to them when they are transferred back out of hospital. The lack of continuity of care often results in readmission, so what will the Minister do to ensure that, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, just outlined, we improve the lot of those particular care workers?
Lord Markham (Con)
First, I welcome the noble Baroness to the NHS England board, with high expectation of the value that she will add to it. I am very interested to understand her point further; I will speak to Minister Whately about that and respond to the noble Baroness in writing. Where people have knowledge of a patient at home, they can add that to their care when they come back out again.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, one of the lessons we learned, sometimes very painfully, during the earlier stages of the pandemic was the importance of working with, and often through, local government to tackle some of these issues. The same is true now. Would my noble friend explain how the NHS will use discharge funding and purchase social care provision? Will integrated care boards do that locally with local government, which has been managing social care purchasing for decades?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend. The best ICBs that I have seen have the local authority as part of their board and their decision-making on a day in, day out basis. One of the best control systems that I saw in an ICB actually had the local authority social care people in the room making the decisions with them, so they are a key element in all of this. On purchasing and funding, they are very much a strong player.
Lord Watts (Lab)
The Government have spent 13 years cutting the number of beds and they are now reversing that and starting to increase it, which is welcome. The other thing that they have done is to constrain pay in the NHS and social care. They have an opportunity to do something about that. Why are they not taking the opportunity to boost pay in both those sectors to address some of the problems that we face?
Lord Markham (Con)
I welcome what I hope, over the past few days, has been better mood music—let me put it that way—in this space. I hope from the different things that we see that we will get closer towards a landing zone where we can reach agreement going forward. We know from both sides that neither side wants to be in this dispute. My hope very much is that constructively—with good will on both sides, which we are seeing—we will find a way forward.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Code A) Order 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the draft Order laid before the House on 13 October 2022 be approved.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, this order was laid in draft before Parliament on 13 October 2022. It will bring into effect a revised code of practice issued under Section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which I shall call “PACE” from now on. This is PACE Code A, which governs the exercise by police officers of powers to stop and search a person without first arresting them. For England and Wales, PACE sets out the core powers of the police to prevent, detect and investigate crime. The exercise of these powers is subject to codes of practice, or PACE codes, which the Secretary of State is required to issue. The PACE codes put in place important procedural safeguards for the public and detainees when the police exercise their powers.
The proposed amendments to PACE Code A, which we are discussing today, relate to police powers to stop and search individuals subject to a serious violence reduction order, which I will refer to henceforth as “SVROs”. Inserted into the sentencing code by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, SVROs are civil orders which give the police powers to stop and search individuals convicted of an offence where a bladed article or offensive weapon was used or was present. Cracking down on knife crime is a priority for the Government, and SVROs are an important part of that crucial endeavour. By increasing the risk of detection, these orders are designed to deter habitual knife carriers from reoffending, as well as to help prevent exploitation into continued criminality, including further weapons carrying.
We must build an understanding of the impact of the new orders, so the issuing of the orders will be piloted in West Midlands, Merseyside, Sussex and Thames Valley police force areas. The pilot will be independently evaluated before a decision is made on rollout of the orders across England and Wales. We have proposed these revisions to PACE Code A to ensure that proper guidance and safeguards on the use of the new stop and search power are in place for the pilot.
The proposed revisions were subject to a statutory consultation, which ran for six weeks; they introduce a new temporary annexe, G, which deals with searches in relation to SVROs. In particular, the code highlights that the power does not require officers to have prior reasonable grounds, but its use must not be based on prejudice; it highlights that searches can be conducted only on those subject to an SVRO, and that officers should seek to confirm the identity of the individual; it outlines that the use of the power, like all other stop and search powers, is discretionary, and that officers will be expected to use their judgment when choosing to conduct searches; it outlines that the new annexe will apply for 24 months, plus an additional six-month transitional period; and it outlines the territorial extent of the use of the powers. While SVROs will be issued only in the pilot police force areas, the stop and search powers will be available across England and Wales.
On concerns around disproportionality and the impact of stop and search on particular communities, our aim is for these orders to enable police to take a more targeted approach, specifically in relation to known weapons carriers. The code of practice is just one of many safeguards in place to ensure the fair and proportionate use of SVROs. The revised code was laid before Parliament together with the draft order and Explanatory Memorandum. Subject to the order being approved, the revised code will come into force on 17 January 2023. I must highlight that this date is not a fixed date for the commencement of the SVRO pilot: we are ensuring that all the appropriate secondary legislation is in place before commencing in early 2023.
Fighting crime and protecting the public are central to the Government’s agenda. I therefore commend the draft order to the House and I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Order does not restrict the powers of police constables to stop and search people without suspicion to those limited geographic areas piloting Serious Violence Reduction Orders, but instead permits all police constables in England and Wales to make use of this power during the time of the pilot.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I have tabled my amendment because the concession we reasonably believed we had secured from the Government, to limit new without-suspicion police stop and search powers to specific geographic areas, is not being delivered. As the Minister explained, the Government now want the new police powers to be used throughout England and Wales during the pilot.
As the Minister explained, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 gives the police a new power to stop and search anyone who is subject to a serious violence reduction order, or SVRO, without any reason to suspect that they might be carrying something they should not carry. A court can place a serious violence reduction order on anyone convicted of any criminal offence if they, or anyone they were with at the time of the offence, had a knife on them, whether it was used in the commission of the offence or not. This goes far wider than making it easier for the police to stop and search those convicted of knife crime.
The key to violence reduction is not stop and search, but police and communities working together and turning offenders’ lives around. The former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police said that the police could not arrest their way out of knife crime. The success of such schemes as Operation Trident in London were the result of the police and the black community working together, for example. Having visited projects there, I know that the success of knife crime reduction in Scotland has been based on turning offenders’ lives around, particularly at teachable moments when offenders have themselves been seriously injured.
You are 14 times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police if you are black than if you are white, using existing without-suspicion stop and search powers, with about one in every 100 searches resulting in a knife being found. Having such a large number of people being stopped and searched who are not committing any offence, and who the police have no cause to suspect are committing any offence, can lead to a breakdown in relations between the police and communities—one of the keys to successful violent crime reduction. Allowing the police to stop and search an unlimited number of times, without suspicion, someone who has already served their sentence and could well be trying to turn their life around, as these new powers allow, is likely to damage any attempts at rehabilitation. Those in danger of reoffending may see no point in trying to be good citizens when they are being treated by the police as criminals even when they are doing nothing wrong.
When these measures were debated, we believed the new powers could be counterproductive and we told the Government that we were prepared to vote against them, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who led on amendments to this part of the Bill. As a result, the Government agreed to a pilot scheme, geographically limited to a few specific police areas—not court areas, police areas. The pilot scheme would be independently evaluated to establish whether the new powers reduced violent crime in those specific police areas. On that basis, we agreed not to vote against the measures. Following discussion with the police, the Home Office has now agreed to allow the new police without-suspicion stop and search powers to be used throughout England and Wales during the pilot, with the only geographic restriction being to limit the courts that are able to issue SVROs, limited to the specific police areas that were originally agreed.
We made it clear to the Government that it was the new police powers that we objected to, and it was on the basis that they would be limited to certain geographic police areas that we accepted the government concession. It was never discussed, let alone agreed, that the powers of the courts to issues SVROs would be treated separately from the powers of the police to enforce them. As a result, not only have our concerns about the use of these new police powers damaging police/community relations and offender rehabilitation been ignored, but it is difficult to see how the pilot can be effectively evaluated if part of it is limited geographically and the other part is limitless.
There are also practical problems with serious violence reduction orders, such as how police officers are supposed to know that someone is subject to an SVRO, particularly if the power can be exercised over such a wide geographic area, where those subject to them are not likely to be personally known by the officers. Someone innocently walking down the street who is not subject to an SVRO is under no obligation to provide their name and date of birth to the police—the minimum requirement for a check to be made on the police national computer to establish whether they are subject to an SVRO. In that case, can the Minister explain how these orders will work in practice?
The Police Federation, which represents the overwhelming majority of officers likely to use these new powers, was asked to comment on the debate in the other place on this statutory instrument. Among other things, its representative said:
“I imagine we would be deeply concerned about moving away from a form of stop and search that isn’t rooted in ‘Reasonable Grounds’. We could easily make a case that this leaves officers vulnerable to complaint, ‘post stop’, in an area which is already supercharged as an issue in many communities. Reasonable Grounds has a firm legal basis, is tried and tested, and therefore affords reassurance to our colleagues engaged in these stops. The SVRO removes that need … and inadvertently that reassurance. It also strikes me that they are predicated wholly on the stopping officers having prior knowledge of the person being searched, so what happens when this power is used to stop somebody and their identify cannot be confirmed—you then have no reasonable grounds to fall back on, and are potentially left wide open to the ‘you only stopped me because I am black’ allegation. On the face of it, the officers’ only rational [response] if such an allegation came their way would be ‘I believed you were subject to a SVRO’, confirming the allegation [‘that you only stopped me because I am black’] and not ending well when identity has been mistaken.”
That is the view of the representative of rank-and-file police officers: that these powers are likely to place them in jeopardy, particularly if they use them outside the pilot areas where those subject to SVROs are unlikely to be known to the officers carrying out the stop and search. What consultation was there with the Police Federation on these powers?
The Government need to rethink their plans for a pilot scheme. For these reasons, I beg to move the amendment in my name on the Order Paper.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I spend my life being furious at the Government, as I am sure some noble Lords will recognise. However, I want to spare a moment of sympathy for the Minister, who has had to bring this to your Lordships’ House. Clearly, this is going back on a promise; the Government are cheating. They are choosing not to honour a promise. That is really rather disgusting, as it shows a complete lack of respect for your Lordships’ House. I really hope that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who has made a brilliant opening speech, will take this to a vote, because clearly we would have voted on these issues before if we had had the chance. We trusted the Government, but this shows that we cannot. That is very depressing because, if you cannot trust your Government, the whole of democracy falls apart.
I am also worried about the fact that the Government are putting the police at a disadvantage. Trust in the police is at an all-time low, and I think these measures will make it much worse. We worry all the time about the police being distrusted. They cannot do their job if they do not have the support of communities. Of course, with this sort of measure, there will be social and racial barriers to implementing it, and there will be disparities about who the police target. The Government are actually making life much harder for the police. There should not be a power to search without reasonable suspicion.
While I am talking about not trusting the Government, I should say that they are also treating peaceful protest like gang and knife crime. I just do not understand why the Government cannot see the difference between those things. Dissent is healthy; it is part of our democracy. In measure after measure and legislation after legislation, it seems to me that this Government are saying, “We don’t like society the way it is. We are going to radically change it”—and make it much worse for the majority of people.
On the issue of knife crime, my Green Party colleague Caroline Russell, who is a member of the London Assembly, has repeatedly asked the police to stop posting pictures of knives on social media, because it makes things worse. The evidence says that young people feel more at risk and that it encourages them to carry knives. There are other measures that the police can use to reduce knife crime. We have to show young people that it is safer for them not to carry a knife.
All in all, I have two questions for the Minister. First, do this Government have absolutely no respect for this House and for democracy? My second and much smaller point is: why on earth are the Government doing this before the pilots are finished? Surely the pilots should show us the way forward. The Government seem very confused about what pilots are for. Why promise a pilot and then go ahead and introduce these measures anyway? I am disgusted with Lambeth.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, since the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, spent much of last year calling the Prime Minister of the day a liar on the Floor of your Lordships’ House, I am surprised that she has only just now lost her trust in the Government. That was not my principal point in rising to speak; my point was to express a degree of support for the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. As he at least might recall, when we debated the insertion of serious violence reduction orders in the Sentencing Code during the passage of the then Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill last year, I expressed considerable concern about those orders. Indeed, I recall that in Committee I added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, which raised these issues, principally on the grounds that I am extremely concerned by the increasing use of preventive justice, so to speak, by the Home Office and by police forces empowered by the Home Office, rather than taking coercive action on the basis of proven criminality or wrongdoing.
I have considerable sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but since we lost that point and the serious violence reduction orders were inserted in the Bill, it is right that the Government should carry out trials before they are extended throughout the whole country. I understand his point, but what is striking to me is that my noble friend the Minister has so far given no indication of what the tests are by which these trials are going to be assessed once they have been completed. What is success going to look like? What would persuade the Government to make amendments or changes or to drop the whole approach if we saw those results emerging from the trials? I hope my noble friend will be able to say something about that when he rises to respond to this short debate.
While I am on my feet, I say that Sections 60 and 61 of the same measure—the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act of last year—empowered the Home Secretary to issue statutory guidance to police forces on the enforcement of what are referred to as “non-crime hate incidents”. This has so far not appeared, despite the fact that my noble friend the Minister very kindly wrote to me last October saying that the Government hoped to table the new statutory guidance before Christmas, or at least before the end of 2022.
When the Minister responds, would he be able to give us a date by which he expects the Home Secretary to put the draft statutory instrument before Parliament, so that we can debate it and get some parliamentary grip on this contentious but very important area of criminal justice?
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support broadly targeting those convicted of carrying knives, because it seems to follow the evidence we have. Repeat offenders, repeat locations and repeat victims often disproportionately contribute to the amount of crime, particularly with people who carry knives. Not everybody who is violent carries knives, but those who do repeatedly carry them, so it is not a bad idea to target them. In fact, the obverse of what is being said about without-cause stop/search is that this gives a reason to stop/search—namely, that the person has been convicted in a court of carrying a knife or being associated with somebody carrying a knife.
As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned, the Police Federation of England and Wales objected to this proposal, or at least made some arguments counter to it. I am quite surprised by that, because the arguments it makes are also against Section 60 stop/searches. Section 60 orders are put in place in a certain area to target repeat locations and allow stop/searches to be carried out without cause. A similar dilemma is that nobody knows where these areas are until a police officer stops you and says you are in one, which has always for me been a reason why we should have better ways of communicating those areas to people who may be stopped in them. However, the principle of without-cause stop/search has been there for a long time.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that this is not the answer, but I think it is part of an answer. It seems reasonable to target those who repeatedly carry knives or are likely to carry knives, having been warned by a court that they should not. They have been given an order and told not to, so it is reasonable to check whether they are keeping to that order.
I am not in a position to comment on the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, or the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on whether a promise was made about how this power would be extended, but I imagine that one of the challenges will be with those areas adjacent to the four pilot areas—where the line is drawn on a map according to 1974 local government boundaries and often county boundaries. People who wander between villages across a county line cannot be policed on the other side of it if they have an order in place elsewhere, such as in the place where they live—let us say they are in a village just on the other side of a court boundary. It would be an odd conclusion that the adjacent forces to Sussex, West Midlands, Thames Valley and Merseyside would not be able to police these orders and that, in principle, people could wander over the border, carry a knife and not suffer the same consequences.
I agree that identification is important. Officers should be able to identify the people who have these orders. If they stop them and say, “Who are you?”, they indicate that they do not know the person has an order, but there are ways around that. Markers for ground vehicles can be put on the police national computer. Specific intelligence can be shared if people are wandering between, say, various nightclubs or areas, so that local officers know who they are. That can be managed.
My final point is that I was a little surprised by the selection of the pilot areas and that London was excluded. My experience, having policed in South Yorkshire, Merseyside and London, is that where stop/search has been a problem—and it has been—that has often been in London. Frankly, in the rest of the country, the volume is low and the problem is not of the same nature. If you talk to anybody in Merseyside or South Yorkshire, you just do not hear that this is a particular problem. I am not saying that it is not a problem, but it is not of the order that we see in London.
London has seen the sus laws of the 1960s and Section 44 of the Terrorism Act in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and now Section 60 carries its own problems. When I took over in 2011, we discovered that Section 60 orders had, I am afraid, been scattered like confetti around London and something needed to be done. London’s experience of stop/search has been of stop/search without cause, but it is completely different from the rest of the country, so I wonder how much we can take from the experiments in Merseyside, West Midlands, Thames Valley and Sussex that could carry over easily to the London environment. People may not be persuaded by that. That is something the Government might want to consider as the pilots progress; if London is excluded, the evidence may not be as powerful in future.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who made some important and interesting points. I agree with many of them and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Chamber will wish to know that we did not oppose the Motion for this pilot in the other place, but there are also important points that I wish to pose to the Minister to add to those made by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Moylan and Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in another sense, in that this also gives us in this Chamber the opportunity to discuss knife crime, which is clearly an important matter.
We are all horrified by knife crime and the horrific murders, sometimes of young people by other young people, in the most shocking of circumstances—in full public view. Can the Minister start by telling us what the latest figures actually tell us with respect to knife crime? I looked for them before this debate, and some are impacted by the pandemic or use different years as a baseline. What are the actual official figures for knife crime and knife-related murder, and not just in London but across the country? Clearly, whatever the figures are, they are too high, and the fundamental question for this debate is how serious violence reduction orders are expected to help. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, made the point that knife crime prevention orders were backed as the answer to tackle knife crime back in 2019. They have not even started yet. Why is that, and when will they start?
On the issue of disproportionality, the pilot is for two years. However, supposing that problems emerge around disproportionality before the two years—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made—is there a mechanism for an earlier review within that two-year period to look at data as it emerges? The Minister in the other place says he is open to this. What does that mean: an interim review after, say, six months, or a year? What does the Government being “open to looking at this” mean?
Can the Minister explain the transition period of six months and how that will work in practice? In particular, how will it impact on an individual given such an order as regards its length? Are all orders for only a six-month duration or just those issued on the last day of the two-year pilot, hence the six-month transition period? It is not clear to me at all, because if you are given an SVRO on the last day of the two years, it can last only for a maximum of six months. If you are given it on the first day of the two-year period, can you be given it for two years, or two years and six months, or can you be given it for six months, then another six months and another six months? Some clarity about who can and cannot be given SVROs is needed.
On the issue of territorial extent, the SVROs will be able to be used only in the four areas—the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made a good point about how the areas were chosen, why certain other areas were not and why the number four was alighted on, and I think the Chamber could do with some explanation of that from the Government. These four areas are the areas where the orders can be given but, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned, the concern is that the police power will be applied across England and Wales. How will the data be shared by these four areas with forces across the country? What about Scotland? If somebody who is subject to such an order went to Scotland, what happens with respect to that? How will a police officer be able to know that the individual is subject to an order? Again, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe, made that point, although I understand that his point was that you would expect it to be on the police database and shared in that way. However, it would be interesting to see how that will work and what the Government’s response would be.
In other debates, we have talked about stop and search, including whether only a uniformed officer can use this power; again, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has made this point forcefully before. With respect to this order, can only a uniformed officer use this stop and search power—particularly given that, as noble Lords will appreciate, it is stop and search that can be done without suspicion? How many officers have now received the College of Policing training on stop and search, and will they be updated with respect to this order?
On the question of pilots, can the Minister look at ensuring that, if, for whatever reason, a future pilot contains one part that is focused on a small number of areas and another part that is to be applied nationally, this is clearly explained—particularly in this case where, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, have pointed out, this pilot came about as a result of a concession made by the Government because of the concerns about serious violence reduction orders raised by many noble Lords?
Can the Minister say something to inform us how this pilot will be evaluated by Ecorys? How is it going to do that? What criteria is it going to use to determine whether this pilot has been successful? Will it be fully independent of government? Also, are the Government open to the fact that these pilots may fail and not work? In those circumstances, would the Government be prepared to say that they will not carry on with them? The evaluation is particularly important given the concerns around disproportionality with respect to gender and ethnicity. If the evaluation shows that there are problems, the Government should consider other measures.
We all want to tackle knife crime, whatever its level; there is no difference between us on that. There are real issues for us as a society to deal with, as the Minister in the other place said. I want to point out one statistic that the Minister in the other place used so that noble Lords can see how difficult this is, whatever the level of knife crime. He said that
“young black people are 24 times more likely to be murdered using a knife than those from other communities.”—[Official Report, Commons, Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee, 13/12/22; col. 8.]
We all want something to be done about that. We all accept that that figure is too high. The issue for the Government is how on earth knife crime prevention orders are going to tackle that and other issues related to knife crime across the country. Can the Minister say what else the Government are doing to tackle this problem?
We have this new order alongside other orders designed to tackle knife crime and serious violence. We all hope that they work. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and others pointed out, targeting hot spots, having police on the streets in neighbourhoods, prevention, community engagement and support are also crucial. Many lives, often very young ones, are still being lost. Many families are still affected. Many communities are still affected. Orders such as this one may help, but they must be part of a wider ongoing effort by the police and communities if they are to have the impact that we all want.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have made valuable contributions to this debate.
First, I will address the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in relation to the territorial extent of the SVRO pilot. I want to clarify that, as I said earlier, SVROs are being introduced on the basis of a pilot in Merseyside, West Midlands, Sussex and Thames Valley police forces. They will be issued only in these four pilot police force areas. However, as the revised PACE Code A sets out, the stop and search powers are enforceable by all constables across England and Wales; the “all constables” point answers the question of whether they will be in uniform, I think, but obviously they would have to identify themselves as such. This is aimed at supporting an operational response across police force areas, allowing constables from non-pilot forces to stop and search individuals subject to SVROs if they travel outside of the pilot area.
The noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Coaker, asked why we are piloting in those force areas and not with larger forces, where the prevalence of serious violence—
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt; I apologise to the Minister for being rude. I am not clear what he means about whether or not an officer using this stop and search power must be in uniform. This is an extremely important point. I am sorry if it is just me and I did not understand, but I wonder whether the Minister can clarify that point.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
That is no problem at all. I will do my best to clarify that by the end of this speech, but as I understand it, it is all constables, which I assume includes those who do not necessarily wear a uniform.
Regarding the territorial extent of the pilot and why we are piloting in these force areas and not larger ones, where the prevalence of serious violence is higher, all four forces that will pilot SVROs are in the 20 areas most affected by serious violence across England and Wales. They accounted for 80% of all hospital admissions for injury with a sharp object, with each individually accounting for 2% or more of admissions, rounded to the nearest percentage point. The West Midlands has the third-highest rate of knife crime in England and Wales, and Merseyside the sixth-highest. The pilot will allow us to build an understanding of the impact and effectiveness of the new orders before deciding whether they should be rolled out nationally to other force areas. I hope that answers the question.
I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, had to say on this topic; however, stop and search powers are not enforceable across England and Wales. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, noted, individuals subject to SVROs could simply operate outside the pilot areas. The Government held a statutory consultation on the revised code. This issue was discussed at length with key stakeholders, who strongly supported allowing the use of stop and search powers by police constables both within and outside the police force areas. In answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about the Police Federation, it is a member of the PACE board and as such was invited to provide a response. Whether it did, I do not know. Like the proposed approach to SVROs, knife crime prevention orders, which have been referred to, are being piloted in the Metropolitan Police area and can only be issued in that force area. However, the orders are also enforceable across England and Wales.
I stress that this is only a pilot, but we are revising the PACE codes because they outline the fundamental principles of fair and responsible stop and search. We want to ensure that officers have clear guidance on the use of the new powers in the SVRO pilot, including through PACE codes of practice. The search power can only be used against persons who are subject to an SVRO. An individual can be issued with an SVRO only if they are over 18 and have been convicted of an offence involving a bladed article or an offensive weapon, and if the court considers it necessary to make the SVRO to protect the public from the risk of harm involving an offensive weapon or bladed article, or to prevent the offender from further offending involving an offensive weapon or bladed article. Therefore, while the police do not require reasonable grounds for suspicion, it is not an unrestricted stop and search power. The code of practice is clear that the use of the power must not be based on prejudice. The use of the power is discretionary, and officers will be expected to use their judgment when choosing to conduct searches.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked how, if individuals are not legally required to give their identity when stopped by the police, officers will identify those subject to an SVRO. The police will have obtained the offender’s details at the notification stage of an SVRO—there is the requirement for an individual subject of an SVRO to notify the police of their name and address—and they should ensure that any stop and search under the power is targeted at offenders that have a SVRO only. In most cases, it is expected that offenders subject to an SVRO will be known to the police and officers will be able to identify the offender before conducting a search. Where an officer is unsure of an offender’s identity, they should seek to confirm that offender’s identity and whether they have an SVRO before using the stop and search power. It is an offence for an offender to tell a police constable that they are not subject to an SVRO if they are.
The Government fully support the police in the fair use of stop and search to crack down on violent crime and protect communities. The code of practice is one of many safeguards in place to ensure the fair and proportionate use of SVROs. Others include statutory guidance for the police on the use of the power, which we have laid in draft before Parliament, body-worn video, and extensive data collection. Stop and searches carried out using the SVRO power will be subject to the usual internal and external scrutiny panels to ensure that forces are continually reviewing and learning from officer stop and searches.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lord Moylan asked about the evaluation of the pilot. We of course recognise the need for transparency in how the orders are used, and clear and robust monitoring to reassure communities that the orders are being used appropriately and effectively. The Government are piloting SVROs to build an understanding of their impact before deciding whether they should be rolled out nationally. By definition, that implies that if they do not work and we do not get sufficient data, they will not be continued with.
We have appointed an independent evaluator, Ecorys, to carefully gather the data necessary to assess the impact of these orders. We will lay a report on the outcome of the pilot in Parliament. It is expected in late 2025 and will include an initial assessment of the impact of SVROs on the reoffending rates of offenders in respect of whom such orders have been made; include information about the exercise by constables of the powers; provide an assessment of the impact on offenders of being subject to an SVRO; and assess the impact of SVROs on people with protected characteristics within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. We are also working with the SVRO working group and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that all forces are aware of the draft statutory guidance on SVROs and the revised PACE Code A.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked me about training. I do not think it is for me to discuss operational matters particularly, but the training is being worked on by the College of Policing. It will be interactive e-learning training and will ensure that officers in pilot areas understand the new civil orders, their responsibilities and the stop and search powers being provided. This learning platform will test officer knowledge, including when it would or would not be appropriate to use the powers.
To sum up, we do not accept that the availability of the stop and search powers across England and Wales for individuals subject to an SVRO warrants the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The rationale behind the approach we are taking is clear and sensible, and there are strong safeguards in place. Ultimately, we have a responsibility to tackle crime and keep people safe, and that is and will continue to be a key priority for the Government.
I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, mentioned victims; I will go into some detail on the statistics. The latest police-recorded crime figures published by the ONS for the year ending June 2022 show that knife-enabled crime remained 9% lower—that is, 49,991 offences—than pre-coronavirus pandemic levels; in the year ending March 2020, the figure was 55,076. Police-recorded offences of possession of an article with a blade or point were 9% higher in the year ending June 2022, at 25,287 offences, than the year ending March 2020, when there were 23,242 offences. That is a 13% increase. The police recorded 679 homicide offences in the year ending June 2022, which is a 5% decrease compared with the year ending March 2020. Levels have increased by 13% since the year ending June 2021, during which social restrictions were still in place.
I understand the concerns around disproportionality and the impact of stop and search, particularly on black individuals. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has just mentioned, we should not forget that, according to the most recent studies, young black people are 24 times more likely to be victims of homicide than young white people. That is a tragedy. Young people are dying, their families are suffering and their communities are being disproportionately impacted. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker: we absolutely have to do better. I go back to the point I made earlier: to be absolutely clear, an individual must have been convicted of an offence where a bladed article or offensive weapon was used or was present to receive an SVRO, and the stop and search power applies only where an individual has an SVRO.
I will read out a supportive quote from Patrick Green, CEO of the Ben Kinsella Trust. As a reminder, Ben was knifed to death at the age of 16 in 2008; he would now have been entering his 31st year. Patrick said:
“We are pleased that the Government is setting out to do more to take knives and those who choose to persistently carry them off our streets. Reoffending rates have been one of the scourges of knife crime. SVROs give us a chance to look again at stop and search and what more can be done in the courts to reduce offending.”
That very powerful statement speaks for itself.
The policy detail of SVROs was discussed at length during passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. As mentioned, they will be piloted and we will conduct a full evaluation before any further rollout.
My noble friend Lord Moylan went slightly off topic when he asked me about non-crime hate incidents. I will endeavour to answer. The Home Secretary has asked officials to consider the issue of NCHI recording to ensure that the police are using their time most effectively. This work is currently under way and includes consideration of whether the Home Secretary will publish a code of practice on non-crime hate incident recording, as provided for in Sections 60 and 61 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act.
In closing, I offer again my thanks to all noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. I hope that I have covered the points raised during it. There is one that I have not: I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on the subject of uniforms; I cannot clarify that at this precise moment. I hope the House will feel sufficiently reassured that the changes we are making to PACE Code A are a necessary safeguard to have in place before commencement of the pilot scheme for SVROs. I have made it clear that public safety is our foremost concern. I therefore commend the order to the House.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I did not hear an answer to my two questions. I do not expect one as to whether the Government respect democracy because I know the answer to that, but my other question was about the pilot scheme. Why promise a pilot and then do the whole rollout?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am not entirely sure that I understand the noble Baroness’s question. If you are going to have a pilot you have to roll it out, surely.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Why not wait for the pilot to finish before you decide to roll out the whole thing more widely?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
We have not actually started the pilot and we are not rolling it out. It is stuck to four pilot areas. We are talking about the territorial extent of the stop and search powers.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate, particularly those who supported my amendment.
The Minister has completely glossed over the whole point of the regret amendment, which is that a concession was made by a government Minister at the Dispatch Box to limit SVROs to specific police areas. There was no mention of restricting only the issuing of SVROs, rather than their enforcement, at that time. It was never even considered, let alone agreed to. What has happened is this. The Home Office has consulted the police—what the Government called “key stakeholders”; I think the Minister means the police, as that is who they consulted—and the police said, “Hang on a minute, we need the power across all of England and Wales because these criminals travel”. That may or may not be a valid argument, but it was not what the Minister promised from the Dispatch Box. That is the point and that is why there is a regret amendment, but I do not intend to delay the House further because there is a big debate to come. I therefore wish to withdraw the amendment.
Financial Services and Markets Bill
Tuesday 10th January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 View all Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 December 2022 - Clarification of Schedule 2 (Transitional amendments): Large print edition - (7 Dec 2022)
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, this Bill is a landmark piece of legislation—the most ambitious reform of our financial services regulatory framework in over 20 years. Perhaps it is a signal of the significance of this legislation that we have the pleasure of three maiden speeches during this debate. I welcome my noble friends Lady Lawlor, Lord Remnant and Lord Ashcombe to the House. I very much look forward to hearing their contributions.
I also pay tribute to the former Chancellor and Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my noble friend Lord Lawson, who has recently retired, having served Parliament in both Chambers for nearly half a century. While serving as Chancellor he transformed the tax system, unleashed the City and revolutionised the approach to macroeconomic policy, setting the economy on the path of growth. His voice, reason and perspective will be sorely missed in this Chamber, and I thank him for all his service.
The Bill represents the platform upon which much of this Government’s vision for financial services will be delivered—a vision for an open, green and technologically advanced financial services sector that is globally competitive and acts in the interests of communities and citizens, creating jobs, supporting businesses and powering growth across all four nations of the United Kingdom.
Effective, efficient and easily accessible financial services are a foundation for people’s everyday lives and the bedrock upon which our economy is built. They also make their own direct contribution to our economic growth, with financial and related professional services employing more than 2.3 million people across the UK and, in 2020, contributing nearly £100 billion in taxes. In recent decades, the UK has become a leading global centre for financial services and, as the Chancellor highlighted in the Autumn Statement, the sector is one of the UK’s five key areas of growth for the future. Our exit from the EU creates the opportunity to ensure that continues by implementing a more agile and internationally competitive set of rules, better tailored to the UK market, while ensuring the sector remains well-regulated and effectively supervised.
The Bill has five overarching aims. First, it implements the outcomes of the future regulatory framework review. Secondly, it bolsters the competitiveness of UK markets and promotes the effective use of capital. Thirdly, it takes steps to make the UK an even more open and global financial hub. Fourthly, it harnesses the opportunities of innovative technologies, enabling their safe adoption in the UK. Lastly, but by no means least, it promotes financial inclusion and enhances consumer protection.
I turn to the first aim, to implement the future regulatory framework or FRS review. Clause 1 revokes retained EU law for financial services so that it can be replaced with a coherent, agile and internationally respected approach to regulation that has been designed specifically for the UK. This approach builds on the existing model established by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 which empowers our independent regulators to set the detailed rules that apply to firms operating within the framework set by the Government and Parliament. The Government consulted extensively on how the UK’s approach to financial services regulation should be adapted following EU exit, and there was widespread support for the approach taken in this Bill. Schedule 1 contains more than 200 instruments that will be repealed directly by the Bill. These instruments will cease to have effect when the Treasury and the regulators have put into place the necessary secondary legislation or regulator rules to replace them as appropriate.
It is important for the House to recognise that putting this into effect will require a significant programme of secondary legislation to modify and restate retained EU law. As part of the Edinburgh reforms announced on 9 December the Treasury published Building a Smarter Financial Services Framework for the UK, which set out how the Treasury intends to use these powers. Alongside this we published several illustrative draft statutory instruments demonstrating how the powers in the Bill can be used to replace retained EU law.
As the regulators take on greater responsibility for setting rules following the repeal of retained EU law, the Bill makes changes to the regulators’ objectives to ensure that they consider the sector’s critical role in supporting the UK economy. For the first time the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority will be given new secondary objectives to facilitate the international competitiveness of the UK economy and its growth in the medium and long term. The status as a secondary objective strikes the right balance and sets a clear hierarchy by ensuring that the FCA and the PRA must work to advance growth and competitiveness while maintaining their focus on their existing objectives.
The Bill also ensures that the regulatory principles of the financial services regulators require them to have regard to the UK’s statutory net-zero emissions target. This will embed consideration of the climate target across the breadth of financial services regulators’ rule-making and cements the Government’s long-term commitment to transform the UK economy in line with their net-zero strategy and vision.
It is also imperative that the regulators’ new responsibilities are balanced with clear accountability to the Government and Parliament. I assure noble Lords that the Government recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the work of the Treasury and the regulators. There are already a number of provisions in this regard, and the Bill makes further provision to support Parliament in carrying out this important role. It introduces new requirements for the regulators to notify the Treasury Select Committee of a consultation and for the regulators to respond in writing to responses to any statutory consultations from any parliamentary committee. In addition, the regulators will need to be transparent about all respondents to a consultation, subject to their consent. These measures were strongly informed by the views of this House, as expressed during the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021. The Bill also gives the Treasury the power to require the financial services regulators—or, where appropriate, an independent person—to review their rules where it is in the public interest.
I turn now to the Bill’s second aim of bolstering the competitiveness of UK markets and promoting the effective use of capital. The measures in Schedule 2 make important changes to the MiFID framework, which regulates secondary capital markets. They do away with burdensome rules such as the double volume cap and share trading obligation while maintaining high standards and protecting the smooth functioning of markets. High regulatory standards are an essential element of competitiveness in UK markets, and the Bill introduces a senior managers and certification regime for key financial market infrastructure firms, ensuring high standards of governance in these systemically important firms. The Bill also expands the resolution regime for central counterparties to align with international standards and enhances powers to manage insurers in financial distress.
The Bill’s third aim is to strengthen the UK’s leadership as an open and global financial centre. The UK is now able to negotiate its own international agreements, and the Government are currently negotiating an ambitious financial services mutual recognition agreement, or MRA, with Switzerland. While the MRA itself will be scrutinised under the procedures in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, Clause 23 enables the Treasury to amend existing legislation to give effect to this and any future financial services MRAs once finalised. Schedule 2 will enable the UK to recognise overseas jurisdictions that have the equivalent regulatory systems for securitisations classed as simple, transparent and standardised, or STS, providing more choice for UK investors.
As its fourth aim, the Bill takes steps to ensure that the regulatory framework facilitates the adoption of cutting-edge technologies in financial services. Clauses 21 and 22 and Schedule 6 extend existing payments legislation to include payment systems and service providers that use digital settlement assets, including forms of crypto assets used for payments, such as stablecoin backed by fiat currency. This brings such payment systems within the regulatory remits of the Bank of England and the Payment Systems Regulator. Clauses 65 and 8 clarify that the Treasury has the necessary powers to regulate crypto asset activities within the existing financial services framework, as extended by this Bill. To foster innovation, Clauses 13 to 17 and Schedule 4 enable the delivery of financial market infrastructure sandboxes, allowing firms to test the use of new and potentially transformative technologies and practices in the infra- structures that underpin financial markets.
The Bill’s final aim is promoting financial inclusion and consumer protection. The Government are committed to fostering a financial services sector that supports everyone, with appropriate consumer protections and measures to ensure that no one is left behind by the rapid advancement in financial technology. There is an extensive programme of work ongoing related to consumer protection, particularly in areas raised by noble Lords during the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021 such as buy now, pay later and the FCA’s new consumer duty. That Act also made legislative changes to support the widespread offering of cashback without purchase in shops and other businesses, following a proposal by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond.
Clause 51 and Schedule 8 of this Bill go further and give the FCA responsibility for seeking to ensure reasonable access to cash across the UK. The Treasury will designate banks, building societies and operators of cash access co-ordination arrangements to be subject to FCA oversight on this matter. Clause 52 and Schedule 9 give the Bank of England new powers to oversee the wholesale cash infrastructure to ensure its ongoing effectiveness, resilience and sustainability.
Finally, the credit union sector plays a crucial role in providing access to affordable credit to its members. Clause 69 will allow credit unions in Great Britain to offer a wider range of products and services to their members. The Bill also strengthens the rules around financial promotions, requiring all authorised firms to undergo a new FCA assessment before they can approve financial promotions by unauthorised firms. This will reduce the risk of consumer harm. Additionally, Clause 68 enables the Payment Systems Regulator to mandate the reimbursement of victims of authorised push payment scams by payment providers for all payment systems it regulates. It also places a duty on the PSR to mandate reimbursement in relation to the Faster Payments system specifically.
This is a substantive Bill; in opening this Second Reading debate I have been able to touch only briefly on many of its main measures. I have no doubt that, when we enter Committee, noble Lords will subject the Bill to the level of scrutiny that it deserves.
As I conclude, I think it is worth reflecting on the journey that we have taken to the production of the Bill. It is the result of several years of consultation with industry, regulators and the public. The Government first consulted on the future regulatory review in October 2020, with a further consultation in November 2021 setting out detailed proposals for reform. It will enable a programme of essential reforms that will help drive our economy, including reforms to Solvency II and the prospectus regime and changes resulting from the wholesale markets review. So, as we conduct the important work of scrutinising this Bill, I hope that the Government’s broad approach will draw support from across the House and that many noble Lords share the Government’s ambition to ensure that the UK’s financial services continue to be an engine of growth for our economy. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to open the Back-Bench debate by thanking the Minister for her opening address and, like her, welcoming the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Remnant and Lord Ashcombe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. I reassure the Minister that I support the Bill and the intent to modernise our financial services and ensure that the City retains its competitiveness in a global marketplace. However, this has to be done in parallel with measures to promote financial stability, inclusion and consumer protection as well as—I hope—recommitting the Government to making the City the first net-zero aligned financial centre.
Like the Minister, I can concentrate on only three or four aspects of this. First, I want to talk about financial inclusion. How is the Government to address the poverty premium—the extra costs that poorer people pay for essential services such as insurance, loans or credit cards? This is closely linked to the ease of access to cash and banking services, to which the Minister referred. The fact is that the Bill does nothing to protect essential face-to-face banking services, which the most vulnerable in our society depend on for financial advice and support.
Indeed, on this Government’s watch, almost 6,000 bank branches have closed since 2015, yet there is a significant overlap between those reliant on cash—estimated at about 10 million people—and those who need in-person bank support. Those without the digital skills to bank online, people with poor internet connections and people who are unable to afford wi-fi are at risk of being left behind.
The Government have committed to protecting access to cash, but will free access be protected? The key to this is ensuring that the ATM network is sufficiently funded by the interchange fee. Since 2018, this funding has seen successive real-term cuts, which is risking the closure or the conversion of an estimated 37,000 free-to-use ATMs. I believe that the regulator must be mandated to consider the funding of ATMs through legislation in this Bill.
I hope that we will do more to protect people from the buy now, pay later industry. We know that many millions of people are borrowing to pay their mortgages, and to put food on their table and clothes on their children’s backs. A quarter of all buy now, pay later users have been unable to pay for at least one essential item because they are having to make repayments on buy now, pay later products. Many did not realise what they were getting themselves into because buy now, pay later is currently so pervasive on websites. Users have nobody to complain to; they cannot go to the ombudsman if they feel they have been mis-sold this type of credit. I understand that the Government have accepted proposals to regulate, yet regulation has not come. Why is that, and why cannot this Bill be the vehicle?
I turn now to financial fraud. The Bill offers protection for victims of authorised push payment scams but little to address the growing problem of financial fraud. According to the latest figures from the NAO, 41% of all crime against individuals in the year ending June 2022—with an estimated 3.8 million incidents—was actual or attempted fraud. Yet, the number of fraud offences resulting in a charge or summons is pathetic. In the year ending March 2022, 4,816 fraud cases resulted in a charge or summons. Moreover, less than 1% of police personnel were involved in rendering fraud investigations in the year ending March 2020.
I am particularly concerned about the impact on older people. As Hourglass has pointed out, suffering economic abuse as an older person can have really life-changing effects leading to trauma, mental health problems and, in some cases, death. I do not understand why the Government continue to fail to take fraud seriously and why we cannot see a fully fledged fraud strategy. Again, this Bill provides an excellent vehicle for us to ensure that that happens.
Finally, one other area where the Bill could have done so much more is in relation to cryptocurrency. Recent events following the collapse of FTX have shown the risks in the Government’s aim to make the UK a global hub for cryptocurrency assets. It is true that the Bill contains measures to bring stablecoins into the scope of regulation, but surely they could be doing much more. I say to the Minister: overall, the Bill is welcome but it is certainly ripe for improvement.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the overall objectives of the Bill but have some significant reservations. In the absurd five minutes allowed, I will focus on the reservations rather than the merits of the Bill.
We have very serious reservations about the wholesale bypassing of parliamentary scrutiny that the Bill could bring about. We are sceptical about the merit of the proposed new growth and competitiveness objectives. We are concerned about the extension of the SMCR, and disappointed by the imbalance in the Bill between regulatory modifications in the interests of the financial services sector and measures to protect the interests of consumers.
Schedule 1 sets out what retained EU law is to be revoked, modified or replaced. I counted at least 250 items. Some will be subject to the negative SI procedure, some to the affirmative SI procedure and some to no parliamentary procedure at all. What all this means is that this wholesale transposition, modification, repeal and replacement exercise is not subject to any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. We need to find a way of allowing the relevant Select Committees to initiate proper inquiries into the drafts of proposed changes that they see as important and have this done before any instruments are laid before Parliament or changes are made without reference to Parliament. Parliament should not be used as a kind of consultee. The structure of our financial services regime is far too important to be left to the Treasury and the regulators alone.
I turn to Clause 24 and to the proposed addition, as a secondary objective, of growth and competitiveness to the existing FCA and PRA objectives. There does not seem to be much in the way of compelling evidence for this. In fact, much of the evidence and testimony points in the other direction. This has all been tried before. Many commentators laid a part of the blame for the 2008 crash on these objectives; that is why we repealed them in 2012. Andrew Bailey said then that it did not work out well
“for anyone including the FSA.”
Writing in the Financial Times a month ago, Sir John Vickers, who was the fons et origo of some of this, concluded:
“For the UK economy, it would be best to reject this addition to regulators’ objectives.”
Over 50 economists and policy experts wrote to the Government in May with similar misgivings; so did Which? and, tellingly, so did the FCA’s own consumer panel. We will return to the issue in Committee.
The next area I want to touch on is the extension of the SMCR. The proposal is to extend, mutatis mutandis, the existing regime to FMIs—a good idea if the current SMCR had worked, but it has not. The current version of the SMCR has not produced the results intended or envisaged. In fact, I can recall only a single case of a truly senior manager being held to account: that was the egregious Jes Staley at Barclays. This is not because the financial services sector has forsworn misbehaviour. We will want to return to this issue in Committee.
I now turn to measures to protect consumers. The last time we discussed imposing a duty of care, it was agreed that the FCA would examine the case. The FCA has decided that preferable to a duty of care was a new set of rules for firms’ behaviour called the new consumer duty. This consumer duty is due to come into effect at the end of July, a year after the final rules were published in a 90-page paper, helped by a 114-page guidance note. Not only is this extremely complex and yet another very heavy burden on firms, but it is very unclear that the new duty is superior in any way to a simple duty of care. Critically, it omits private right of action provisions. We will bring forward amendments to replace this consumer duty with a duty of care and a private right of action. We will also bring forward amendments to extend the FCA’s perimeter to cover lending to SMEs, which have suffered at the hands of predatory and unscrupulous lenders.
We will bring forward an amendment to relieve the plight of the mortgage prisoners. These are people who, in the collapse of 2008, had their mortgages acquired by the Treasury and then sold on to various inactive lenders and American vulture funds. Since then, these people have been trapped on very high SVRs. This is entirely the Treasury’s fault. It has caused and still causes immense suffering to many thousands of families. We will try to put that right.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I first draw attention to my interest in the register as a shareholder of Fidelity National Information Services, which owns Worldpay. Like others, I generally support what this Bill is trying to achieve. There is much that is good here, but there are areas for improvement. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, who chaired the EU Financial Affairs Sub-committee of this House, which I sat on. In its last publication before it was wound up following Brexit, that sub-committee stated that
“Delegating more powers to the financial regulators will require increased parliamentary oversight of their activities”.
It suggested that
“This might require a change in the way that parliamentary committees are structured and an increase in resources to enable effective scrutiny”.
While the Bill gives strong rights of oversight and direction to the Treasury, it does very little to provide increased parliamentary oversight. Frankly, informing the Treasury Select Committee of consultations does not really cut the mustard, nor are the performance reporting requirements strong enough. Treasury oversight and parliamentary scrutiny are not the same thing. Our financial services industry is so important and its regulation so complex that I continue to believe that this House—possibly jointly—should create a committee specifically for this purpose and to provide the systematic scrutiny of the decisions, actions, policy-framing and impact of the financial services regulators and of HM Treasury. Financial services regulation is too big a topic to be a part of a wider committee such as our existing Industry and Regulators Committee; it needs dedicated coverage.
Importantly, the systematic scrutiny should be forward-looking. Historically, the regulators have tended to be too reactive after the event and have not done enough to identify future risks. Most of the financial scandals of recent years were foreseeable—indeed they were foreseen by some. I do not see anything in this Bill that will improve that.
I welcome the secondary objective to support growth and international competitiveness. Our financial services industry is such an important part of our economy that it must not be held back by overzealous regulation. It is not possible or even desirable to eliminate all risk. I do not understand, though, why the net-zero objective should not be given equal importance. It is welcome that the regulators should “have regard” to net zero, but I would be keen to hear from the Minister what the practical difference is between a secondary objective and a “have regard” requirement, and why net zero should not have equal billing to growth, given that the Government agree about its fundamental importance to our future. I do not believe that the two are incompatible.
I welcome the introduction of the sandbox rules, which should enable innovation. I have one question: when rules are disapplied for this purpose, who will be liable for any losses suffered if things go wrong? Consumers should not bear that risk.
I am pleased that crypto assets are at last being brought into the regulatory environment, although in a small way—only stablecoin when used as a means of payment. The Bill allows for further regulation in the future, which is welcome. But crypto has become the wild west, increasingly used by fraudsters both as a scam in itself and as a means of extracting value from other scams.
The Government’s stated objective is that activities having the same risk should have the same regulatory outcomes. Crypto is clearly of the highest risk, but it is almost entirely unregulated. That feels like a missed opportunity. When will we see crypto assets being properly regulated?
The Bill requires the PSR to consult and to regulate for the mandatory reimbursement of victims of APP scams which used faster payments. That is very welcome, but it is only a very minor step in addressing the huge and growing fraud epidemic to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred earlier. Why does it include only faster payments and not all forms of payment? Faster payments themselves are part of the problem, so where is the ability to slow down payments in certain circumstances? What about the sharing of the liability, preferably with all those who facilitate the crime, such as social media and telecoms companies, or at least the sharing of the liability between the victim’s bank and the bank which received and processed the money for the fraudster? Has the Minister read the recent report from the Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee, of which I am a member? When will we see real action from the Government to address fraud, not just consultation?
The inclusion of access to cash is welcome, but access to cash is meaningless if cash is not accepted. The main reason why businesses stop accepting cash is the closure of nearby bank branches where it can be deposited. I again agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we need to find a solution to the closure of bank branches.
Overall, this is a necessary Bill, and I generally support it. However, there are areas where it could be usefully improved, and I hope the Government will be receptive to constructive suggestions during the next stages.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, this year marks the 10th anniversary of the final report of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, Changing Banking for Good. I declare my interest having served on that commission, and I welcome the presence in this debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who also served, as did the current Lord Speaker. I also welcome the maiden speeches of three noble Lords today: the noble Lords, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Remnant, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor.
We need to remember that the extraordinary crisis in 2008—which led to the various commissions, reports and changes in regulations, including the financial services Act 2013, in which the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards played a part—caused huge and ongoing crises. While welcoming the Bill very strongly, I join some of the hesitations mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Sharkey and Lord Vaux. It has been estimated that the financial services industry, and particularly the major banks, have an effective subsidy as a result of the implicit government guarantee that they receive, which is worth approximately £30 billion a year. If there is £30 billion a year going spare, many other industries and not a few churches would welcome that very warmly. However, that subsidy, which is at the risk of the taxpayer, as we saw in 2008 and 2009, is what gives the result of the banks having heavy social obligations; we must look carefully at that when the Bill reaches Committee, as has already been said. The issues of inclusion, stability and access at all levels, especially for micro-businesses, are very important, not least for levelling up.
I will raise three particular and short issues, the first of which is the human factor. The banking standards commission commented that, in the rapidly changing science of the financial markets, regulation is a vain hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has already said. By the time regulation is brought in to address a problem, all but the doziest horses will have long since fled the stable. The commission highlighted that the question of culture is at the heart of good banking practice: attitudes of greed, the socialising of losses and the personalising of profits, the kind of legacy people wish to leave, and the issues of virtue. Is the mindset and approach of key leaders in the industry one of casino banking or banking for the common good? That is essentially a moral question.
Some of that is addressed very well in the Bill. I particularly welcome Clause 69, addressing credit unions, and the opportunity that that will give for levelling up and extending the range of financial access to small businesses. But we see in the recent crypto-market crash a perfect example of the failure of culture, as well of regulation, and of technology moving infinitely faster than any regulation. We need a system that is agile and keeps regulation light, so that the industry is competitive, but keeps principles tough and flexible, with heavy consequences for breaking them.
On the importance of capital adequacy and the ring- fence, this was clear at the time of 2008, when one of the major banks had 2% capital to support a more than £1 trillion balance sheet. We need to recognise that banks go under because of bad lending and bad dealing, and the remedy to that is adequate capital and adequate principles and culture—otherwise, we will get back to the point, as we did in 2008, where the taxpayer bears the burden.
Finally, we need competition and an effective industry but not a race to the bottom. There needs to be a race to the top, to the best-quality services, which serve people and the common good both now and in future generations through its green aspects. There has been a tendency over the years to say how much the City contributes, but let us be clear that, if we take into account the roughly £250 billion pumped into the banking system in 2008, it is not so obvious that the City is in credit to the taxpayer—it may well be that it is in significant debit. Nevertheless, this Bill is very positive. As long as it ends up reminding financial services that they are services for all and has principles at its heart, it will be welcomed and make a significant difference.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an adviser to and shareholder in Banco Santander.
This Bill touches on many topics, but I want to focus on two big questions: what are the objectives of financial services regulation, and who holds the regulators to account, and how?
On the first question, we know that the main objectives of regulation are ensuring that markets function well and that there is market stability, market integrity and consumer protection. As has been said, this Bill adds a secondary objective of competitiveness and growth. I support that new objective entirely, not because I want a race to the bottom—quite the reverse. I believe that simple, proportionate and robust regulation, applied by regulators in a timely, consistent way, is the bedrock of a competitive financial centre. To achieve that, regulation must reflect developments in finance.
We all know how much finance has changed over the past decade or so, since the financial crisis: crypto, AI and blockchain—technology in all its guises—turbocharging areas such as payments; green finance and ESG; not to mention the rise in Asian markets. All this has dramatically reshaped the financial sector, not just here but across the world. For us, obviously we have had Brexit, raising challenges but also opportunities. We need our regulators to be mindful of this new world in all they do, so that our financial service sector continues to attract capital, investment and talent—and, yes, that means change. But regulations are judgments; they are made at a moment in time. We should not get into the mindset of treating them, dare I say it, as tablets of stone, brought down from the mountain and never to be changed.
To ensure that our regulatory framework is fit for purpose, we must remember the lessons learned in previous crises, but we must not regulate via the rear-view mirror but for the world as it is and for emerging risks. My concern is not that the new objective goes too far but the reverse: that it will not have any meaningful impact. One reason for that is that it is a secondary, not a primary, objective. Another reason is that I question how it is going to sit alongside the new regulatory principle contained in the Bill that regulators must be mindful of the Climate Change Act 2008. How many trade-offs, should they arise, would be made between the green objective and competitiveness?
This brings me to another concern and my second big question: who holds the regulators to account? There is of course the specific issue of how regulators will be held to account in implementing the new secondary objective, but there is a much broader issue, raised a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. The Bill will give ever more power to unelected regulators; how are they going to be held to account? Of course, they are independent, but independence and accountability must go together hand in hand, and by accountability I mean regular systematic processes whereby the main actions of the regulators are thoroughly scrutinised by Parliament. As has been said, we have no such effective system at the moment.
I know the Bill stipulates that the Treasury Select Committee will scrutinise consultations, but consider just one fact: last year, on my reckoning, the FCA, the PRA and the Payment Systems Regulator between them launched 75 consultations—and that is just consultations, not policy statements or anything else. On my reckoning, there is no way that one parliamentary committee, under the current system as currently resourced, can possibly scrutinise this torrent of regulation; it will simply be washed away by the flood. Of course, we need to avoid politicising the regulatory process, which would undermine the confidence we all want. We also need to avoid parliamentary scrutiny making regulators so nervous that they become excessively cautious in all they do, gold-plating regulation and creating the stability of the graveyard. That said, we need to have an answer to this simple question: who regulates the regulators? At the moment, as the Bill stands there is no clear and effective answer.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I look forward to hearing the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Remnant and Lord Ashcombe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. I join others in welcoming them to the House. I declare an interest as London’s Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience, as the points I shall raise relate to an issue identified as a risk to the resilience of individuals and vulnerable groups—a societal risk—in the London City Resilience Strategy in 2020. This strategy, published shortly before the first Covid lockdown, identified the trend in digital transactions and away from cash:
“A proliferation of digital payment technologies allow individuals to all but avoid the use of cash on a day to day basis. According to the AT Kearney Global Trends 2019-2024 Report ‘the growth of digital applications, e-commerce, and online payment technologies will keep growing over the next five years and beyond’ and we are ‘likely to see the emergence of the first truly cashless society in the next five years. A move away from cash may pose a risk to certain vulnerable groups, notably those facing barriers to digital transactions, or those more likely to be excluded from the mainstream banking system. This could affect the resilience of these groups, as well as … the personal resilience of isolated people, including older generations who are more likely to be reliant on cash.”
During the pandemic, there was a clear acceleration of cashless services, with the organisation LINK identifying that use of cash has reduced by 40% compared with pre-pandemic levels. More recently, however, there has been a subsequent increase in the use of cash by consumers during the cost of living crisis, with 10% of people saying they plan to use cash more than previously to help them budget. This alone demonstrates a clear continued need for cash by the public, despite what has been described as the turbocharging of a move away from cash since 2020. It is welcome, therefore, that the Bill includes a requirement on the Treasury to publish a cash access strategy and a requirement on the FCA to ensure reasonable provision of cash access services—and “reasonable” should, must, mean “adequate”.
The requirements must also ensure that older people, those with disabilities and those on a lower income who rely on cash are not adversely affected. We have a tradition in this country that the public are not charged for withdrawing their own money. This is a good tradition and should become an explicit right. This legislation should make it clear that there should be a default right to access cash free of charge and a right to use cash to buy basic goods and services for those for whom other forms of payment are not an option. This group, which is at risk of being marginalised, includes more than 5 million people who rely on using cash for their normal spending—a significant minority who should be protected.
Equally important is that there is no poverty premium on cash users and that the decline in free-to-use ATMs and the increase in pay-to-use ATMs—all too often found in some of our most deprived communities, as well as many rural communities—are halted. The closure of almost 6,000 bank and building society branches since the start of 2015, as has been noted, has left many consumers without easy access to a bank branch and is exacerbating the issue.
There have been some imaginative approaches to piloting ways to address these issues, but more needs to be done to assess the pilots to make sure they work and to roll out measures that can address this issue. The Bill provides the ideal opportunity to do this. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that it could go further in this regard. As the consumer organisation Which? has said, we need to avoid sleepwalking into
“a situation where cash users struggle to make purchases or are excluded from certain services.”
Without ambitious plans to ensure that all those who require cash can still use it and that they have easy and free access to it, there is a clear risk of further increasing the impact of financial exclusion, which is all too widespread in our society already.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I declare my financial services interests in the register and my membership of the international Systemic Risk Council.
This Bill falls short on accountability. During the passage of the 2021 FSA, I suggested regular independent reviews akin to the Australian system—a more advanced vision than the sporadic reviews in this Bill, which are reliant on government initiation. Why not have rolling and thematic reviews and regulators reporting to Parliament under independent assessment criteria, such as from the NAO?
The framework consultation touted parliamentary scrutiny as a safeguard, but that is deceptive when the Government have blocked adequate parliamentary influence. Committees have modest power through public interrogation, and Ministers now regularly avoid attending Lords committees. Should parliamentary reports not get specific attention in review processes, not least to reflect public interest, which is left faint among the numerous industry hotlines to Downing Street? The Government cannot hide behind regulatory independence when they fix the regulatory perimeter and key policies, appoint regulators and control reviews. Failure is on the tab of government—maybe a different one further down the track, but the collective reputation of the UK in financial services is on the line.
We have just had an example of that with the market turmoil from DB pension schemes. At its root is the setting aside since 2005 of EU rules requiring pension scheme investment to be vanilla because pension schemes have only light-touch supervision and trustees are mainly ordinary folk and not financial experts. Trustees were thus left at the mercy of unregulated, liability-shirking advisers and the hapless Pensions Regulator.
I have been involved in investigations through the Industry and Regulators Committee, giving evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee and participating in conferences, where polling on the biggest loser in the debacle put the reputation of the UK top. Gilt turmoil is a named issue in papers for international organisations looking at systemic risk.
The timid excuse is that we are waiting for international agreement relating to non-bank systemic risk—that is outrageous, given that this is a UK-created and UK-specific issue of financial stability, with a regulators’ muddle, gaps and an issue that the Financial Policy Committee should have been all over. In evidence to the Economic Affairs Committee, Sir Paul Tucker questioned the point of the Financial Policy Committee if all it does is report. Now, there is some pulling up of socks, again after the event. Systemic risk exists in many funds, but the corralling and correlation of risky investment strategies in pension schemes with emphasis and concentration in gilts is uniquely ours, uniquely crafted and well-known where it should have mattered. It is not black swans and larger buffers; Bank of England yield tables show turmoil well under way at under 40 basis points’ change, and the transposition dirty secret has long been protected by the Treasury and its alumni.
The Bill also touches on issues of cryptocurrency and critical third parties, a reminder that financial services are not really penned in to entity and activity-based perimeters. As the IMF said, we are already into the era of reimagining regulation, otherwise it is not possible to cope with fintech or big tech which blur and exploit the boundaries of regulation. Online brokerage mimics the addictive features of social media, targeting the vulnerable. We regulate gambling but we do not even have robust age verification for online investing. Fraud is at epidemic levels and respects no regulatory boundaries. Far from having agile principles and simple regulation, we have a rigid perimeter and rule dinosaur, which is fostering fraud and revelling in the abuse of position and asymmetry of information. Regulators are operationally inefficient, underfunded, late and thwarted on enforcement.
Financial services are the food of the economy. Where there is harm, there should be justice—and not just where it is regulated. I will be offering amendments.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, how do I follow that? It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, with her knowledge and her forensic contributions. I also look forward to the three maiden speeches we are going to hear this evening.
In the time available, I will speak about two things—including, perhaps perversely, one that is not yet in the Bill—and then say a few words about crypto. I saw in the Financial Times today that the new chair of the Treasury Select Committee rather humorously described crypto as:
“The freedom for people to do silly things with their money”.
The absent area is the urgent need to tackle the use of dirty money to prevent public interest investigations into market participants. It is widely recognised that the UK legal system is used, often with money very questionably obtained and possibly laundered in UK markets, to suppress the publication of matters in the public interest. We discussed these activities—which have become known as SLAPPs or lawfare—during the passage of the economic crime Act, so I do not propose to repeat what was said then. Nevertheless, the use of such intimidation to suppress, in the context of this Bill, matters of keen investor need-to-know interest is a distortion of the information and accountability that should underpin efficient financial markets in the UK.
The Bill seeks to address the senior managers regime standards and conduct rules. It should also address this area of coercion, which prevents markets and investors being properly informed about the activities of some leading business figures, illegal activities, market abuse and corruption. For example, there are newspapers which today will not publish stories about so-called oligarchs for fear of the lawfare that will then be waged against them. The consultation following the economic crime Act resulted in a statement from the Secretary of State on 20 July last year that primary legislation would be introduced at the earliest opportunity to enable an early dismissal of such cases. This was recently and vigorously reiterated in response to an Oral Question in this House.
There is both government and cross-party support for cleaning up this abuse of our financial markets and the associated legal system. I should inform the House also that the necessary clauses to give effect to this government commitment have already been drawn up by lawyers and could be included in the Bill. So far, so good. However, the noble Lord answering the Oral Question I referred to a moment ago described the selection of the right legislative vehicle to bring this into effect as “above my pay grade”. Therein lies the problem. It seems that everyone agrees that this legislation is needed, but where is the government impetus to get it done? The matter has become a legislative Cinderella, but the pantomime season is over and it is high time that the promised legislation was enacted. I therefore ask the Minister, when she winds up today’s discussions, whether she will agree to meet with me and others to review the clauses proposed, with a view to arriving at an appropriate amendment to the Bill.
I turn briefly to digital assets, and declare my membership of the APPG for crypto. Blockchain and digital assets are already here, and here to stay. I have long advocated UK regulators getting a better understanding of them, so it is encouraging to see the Bill making some steps in that direction. The Bill introduces a new term, “digital settlement assets”, and appears to put the regulator’s toe in the water with stablecoins, albeit only as a medium of exchange. However, it then makes provision for going far wider—and using secondary legislation—to enable engagement, seemingly with any other digital and crypto assets. Despite my interest in this area, I must sound a note of caution. The constant evolution of digital assets represents not just a financial revolution but a technological and conceptual one that will not fit simply into existing regulatory categories and approaches. Managing emerging innovation and opportunities while preventing abuse is going to pose serious capacity and structural challenges to the regulators. I say candidly that I have my doubts as to whether the FCA is really ready for this.
Today, in brief, I have just two questions for the Minister. First, stablecoins sound so inviting, do they not? However, in reality some have proved to be far from stable, and even those backed 100% by a fiat currency are subject to fluctuations in that underlying currency. I therefore ask the Minister to clarify whether the Treasury is concerned about this and, in particular, whether it has a clear definition of what tests an asset must pass to be truly worthy of branding itself to retail investors as a stablecoin. Finally, and more succinctly, the Treasury surprised us all some time ago by announcing that it was going to produce its own non-fungible token. Can the Minister confirm that this is still the case, and if so, why, or was it just a passing fancy of the Government to be down with the crypto bros?
Lord Hill of Oareford (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as both the lead NED at the Treasury and an adviser to financial and professional service firms in Europe and the UK. My real interest today is in talking about the accountability of the new regulatory framework proposed in the Bill.
The underlying purpose of the Bill is clear enough: to give our financial regulators more independence and more flexibility in setting the regulatory framework for our financial services. As someone who was responsible for financial regulation in the EU and who saw some of the downsides of that rather clunky, consensus-based system, I fully support that objective. The ideal regulatory framework is flexible and dynamic. Risk is not static, and regulation should not be static either.
But if we are to give our regulators more independence and more control day to day over an industry that is so important to the well-being of our country, that surely has to go hand in hand with more accountability. The question that follows is whether this Bill does enough to increase the accountability of our regulators alongside the increase in independence that it clearly gives them. The answer at the moment is that it does not.
To say we need more accountability is not, by the way, to attack our regulators or question the importance of independence. They have an incredibly difficult job and have gradually had more responsibilities dumped on them by politicians who have outsourced their own responsibility for managing risk. If we get it right, clear accountability should strengthen our regulators and protect their independence.
When we talk about accountability, we first need to be clear on our terms. I draw a distinction between the regulations themselves on the one hand and the application of those regulations on the other. Very often, the two are conflated and we just talk loosely about regulation, but the UK’s overall regulatory environment, and our competitive position, are shaped by both the detailed law and what we might call regulatory culture or behaviour. Both affect sentiment in the marketplace and shape the decisions that companies take as to where they want to base their business. When people grumble about regulation in the UK, it is often the process—the length of time it takes to get approvals, inefficiencies, a box-ticking mentality—rather than the rules themselves which infuriates them.
I draw this distinction because we need accountability mechanisms which cover both points—both the rule-making and the application of those rules. When we talk about holding the regulators to account, I am sure we will have a lot of discussion about the proper role of Parliament in the process. As has already been asked, does a session in front of the Treasury Select Committee amount to proper accountability? Is the TSC properly set up and resourced to provide proper scrutiny? Clearly, the answer to both questions is no.
We also need to look at non-parliamentary mechanisms for increasing accountability. Should the regulators publish how long it takes them to process approvals, for example? Should an independent body provide some comparative statistics on how UK regulators do compared with other jurisdictions? Can we beef up the annual “state of the City” report which the then Chancellor, Mr Sunak, committed to publish once a year? Should we think about establishing a body modelled on the OBR which could provide some independent validation of the work the regulators are doing? After all, their decisions have a massive impact on the functioning of our economy and thus our ability to fund public services. If it is good enough for the Treasury goose to have the OBR, why not for the regulatory gander?
This is a vital Bill which will set the framework for one of our most important industries for years to come. I am all for the independence for the regulators it contains, but we will need to do better on accountability.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, as has been said by many, this is very important legislation. It is crucial to giving effective support to the City and our financial services sector more broadly, and there is a lot of good stuff in it. I want to begin by highlighting three of those good things.
First, I welcome the broad approach taken to the onboarded EU legislation on our statute book. It has taken the Government a long time to get here, but the powers to revoke and replace with genuine UK legislation and rules are very important. They show that it is entirely possible to take an ambitious and potentially sweeping approach in this area, which I hope the Government will follow more generally in the other reviews of aspects of our domestic legislation which are under way, if perhaps not taking quite so long about it.
Secondly, the secondary objective on competitiveness is a very good thing. I fear it will be undermined by the duty of compliance with net zero as a regulatory principle as well, but nevertheless it is a very good secondary objective. Obviously, it is correct that regulators should have to pay due regard to our economic prospects in their actions.
Thirdly, the proposals in the Bill to support access to cash are very important. I support much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, said on this subject. Access to cash is important not just for practical and social inclusion reasons but also to preserve a bit of personal freedom and the ability to conduct transactions without the Government or institutions looking over your shoulder. There is of course no point in financial institutions ensuring access to cash if there is in practice nowhere to spend it, so I hope the Government will look in due course at the other side of this problem—the withdrawal of cash in the retail sector more broadly. Getting this right is in the interests of a free and inclusive society.
As others have not mentioned it yet, I mention in passing the commitment made by the Minister in the other place to keep under close scrutiny the PayPal issue—the withdrawal of financial services for essentially political reasons. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to follow up on that and possibly to use the powers in the Bill if necessary.
As with others, my main concern with the Bill is on the accountability of regulators. I have two concerns. The first issue is the quality of regulation. It seems a little pas comme il faut nowadays to criticise the independence of the regulators, but independence is not the same as immunity. It is right to acknowledge the concerns that the FCA and PRA potentially have powers that are too wide-ranging already and sometimes appear to act with impunity, and that sometimes firms are reluctant to challenge because of their relationship with the regulator. There is no statutory requirement on the regulators to make clear rules or act predictably or consistently and, as others have said, sometimes they are slow, risk-averse and reluctant to commit themselves, and that in itself can harm competitiveness.
The second issue is the politics of regulation. The way the regulators fulfil the objectives they are given is in practice highly political. There are many ways of fulfilling those objectives and in choosing how to do so they reflect a political view. They have to make such judgments; for example, and most obviously, on whether the City’s prospects are best protected by divergence—my view—or relative alignment with the way things are done in the EU. That is a political judgment, influenced by the Government’s view, yet the Bill gives the Government no way to compel regulators to act in line with such a political view. The prickly reaction of the regulators to the call-in power, which is now dropped—in my view, mistakenly—shows clearly that they want to keep discretion in this area. I worry that the Bill will create a system in which all the incentives are to go along with what regulators want in order to avoid public arguments.
To conclude, giving new rule-making powers to the regulators against this backdrop, without corresponding duties and genuine accountability, is pretty risky. The system it would put in place of only post-facto accountability involving only the Treasury Select Committee is not good enough. There are likely to be amendments on this subject and I hope the Government will look carefully at them. With those caveats, I am happy to support the Second Reading of the Bill, but I hope the Government will look to improve it in Committee.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I should mention that I am a fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries and, in one way or another, have worked in the financial services industry throughout my professional career, albeit generally on behalf of consumers.
The Bill is in effect a Brexit Bill, as emphasised by the two previous speakers, but the Government are taking the opportunity to pursue wide-ranging changes in the way the industry is regulated. This has led to the concerns which have been expressed and will be expressed subsequently in the debate. For my part, my main concern is to ensure, given any changes, that the interests of consumers are fully protected. The industry owes a duty of care to consumers, and how this should be implemented needs to be set out clearly and directly in the Bill.
Against that background, I want to highlight one aspect of providing care for consumers where more needs to be done. Mental health and financial circumstances are clearly linked. Problems with your mental health can make it harder to earn money, to manage spending and, crucially in the context of financial services, to get a fair deal on products and services. Facing financial difficulties should not result in needing mental health treatment, but too often those things come hand in hand. Financial difficulty itself causes stress and anxiety, but this is often made worse by, for example, collections activity or having to go without essentials. It is important, therefore, to understand the scale of the problem. In any given year, one in four people will experience a mental health problem, and the pandemic and the cost of living crisis have made things worse.
Common symptoms of mental health problems, such as low motivation, unreliable memory, limited concentration and reduced planning and problem-solving abilities, can make managing money significantly harder. Those symptoms can also make it more difficult to interact with financial services. For example, four in 10 people say that they find it difficult or distressing to make phone calls. Experiencing a mental health problem can also make people more vulnerable to fraud and scams. People with mental health problems are three times more likely to report that they have been the victim of an online scam than other people.
The relevance of all this to the Bill is that the financial services industry needs to be placed under an explicit obligation to act responsibly towards its customers who have mental health problems. The industry needs to recognise and understand the nature and scale of these problems, it should be placed under a duty of care towards its customers, and it should be required to take active steps that will minimise the potential difficulties faced by those who have or are at risk of having mental health problems that are associated with their finances. Obviously, this will be of benefit to the individuals concerned, but it will also relieve much of the pressure on our mental health services, and, finally, it will be of benefit to the financial services industry itself in not accumulating bad business.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet. The public want action on climate change. When people are given a choice, they are voting with their feet—the uptake of electric cars, which is beating all expectations, is a case in point. It is clear that businesses and financiers also want a robust net-zero framework. The UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association, an organisation of over 300 financial services firms with over £19 trillion in assets under management, published recommendations of a number of “critical actions” to move the UK’s financial sector towards net zero. The Aldersgate Group business alliance, which has a collective global turnover of over £550 billion, has noted how the
“lack of clarity on the direction of public policy confuses businesses and investors and leads to an ineffective allocation of money.”
People and businesses want action because the dire impacts of climate change are visibly here with us now, and the increasing ferocity of climate events has taken even pessimistic scientists by surprise. The Met Office has confirmed that 2022 was the hottest year on record in the UK, and 2023 is set to be even hotter. This legislation should reflect that concern.
I will leave it to others far more knowledgeable than myself to speak on the technicalities of the regulatory framework for financial services and to say whether the Bill is fit for purpose. I will confine the rest of my remarks to what I believe to be a serious shortcoming of the Bill, which is its almost dismissive approach to the role that money plays in safeguarding the health and natural capital of our planet.
To start with deforestation, the agriculture, forestry and land use sector produces almost a quarter of all global greenhouse gas emissions. The Global Resource Initiative task force, established by the Government and comprising finance and private sector leaders, has independently recommended the introduction of new legislation applying deforestation and human rights due diligence obligations to UK financial institutions. Its report is worth reading—the stakes are high. It states:
“No pathway to 1.5 degrees is possible without addressing forest loss”.
However:
“If properly protected and restored, forests and other ecosystems could provide more than one-third of the total CO2 reductions required to keep global warming below 2° C. This decade provides a narrowing window of time to act.”
Deforestation is a “top priority area” in the UK’s net zero strategy, yet the UK is a major financier of global deforestation. The Government could have used the Bill to follow through on the GRI’s recommendation and stop UK financial institutions bankrolling forest destruction abroad to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds. Why did they not do so?
I have a list of other concerns, which include: the regulators’ requirement to “have regard to” climate goals is inadequate to support net zero and nature; the removal of sustainable disclosure requirements from the Bill is causing concern; there is a need for a better interpretation of “fiduciary duty” to help clarify that climate change is financial risk; and, last but not least, the implications of the abolition of Solvency II rules and the safeguarding of environmental targets by a replacement regime—information on that would be welcome.
In conclusion, the markets serve a societal function, but they are there to serve us, and it is up to the Government to set the parameters within which the market will deliver the social and environmental values without which we cannot thrive.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register as chairman of a publicly quoted bank. I am also regulated by the PRA and the FCA under the senior managers regime, so I am putting a book down my trousers for the rest of my speech.
I welcome the Bill and its commitment to supporting our financial services sector by creating competition and removing needless bureaucracy and regulations which were made for Europe but were wrong for Britain. There is, however, a fundamental weakness that needs to be addressed in Committee. That is, while the Bill gives regulators more powers and independence, it is shockingly weak on ensuring their accountability to Parliament. These points have been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and my noble friends Lord Bridges, Lord Frost and Lord Hill, so I think there is a degree of consensus across the House on this matter.
That accountability is vitally important to ensure that we achieve the growth and wealth creation our country desperately needs after the ravages of Covid lockdown. We have already seen the undermining of Parliament’s role in voting means of supply, with the Bank of England’s expansion of its balance sheet through quantitative easing—money created out of thin air on an industrial scale. Quantitative easing amounts to just short of £1 trillion—in fact, almost 40% of our GDP—in which Parliament was a bystander and the Chancellor unable to be held to account because we are told the Bank of England is independent.
Your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee warned that QE was a dangerous addiction in 2021 and that the Bank’s view that inflation was a transient phenomenon while continuing with QE risked serious inflation. Its own chief economist resigned while expressing similar concerns. The committee was ignored, and it turned out to be right and the Bank wrong. The consequences have been inflation, higher interest rates and a bill in excess of £100 billion for taxpayers to allow the asset purchase facility of the Bank of England to pay interest to the banks under an indemnity agreement with the Treasury, which the Treasury has insisted on keeping secret.
I voted for Brexit, to coin a phrase now so popular with the leader of the Opposition, because I wanted to take back control. I wanted to restore to Parliament, particularly the elected House of Commons, the ability to make our laws and be held to account for them at every general election. Frankly, this Bill seems to pass control of regulation from one unelected European bureaucracy to other unelected bureaucracies in the form of the Treasury, the PRA and the FCA. Parliamentary scrutiny and accountability in a thicket of Henry VIII provisions and regulatory powers, whose purpose is unclear, is derisory.
The fact that we have only five minutes each to discuss this Bill is an absolute abuse of the House. Also, as I discovered this afternoon, thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that we are expected to deal with this Bill in a Grand Committee, not on the Floor of the House. Whatever was the Official Opposition thinking in agreeing to such a matter?
Of course, Clause 36 purports to tackle this issue by providing that the FCA and the PRA would have to notify the Treasury Committee when they published a consultation and responded to any committee replies to their consultations. We do not need a clause in the Bill to do that; such a measure already exists. It is already part of custom and practice. Is that really accountability? Is that it? Surely, at the very least, we need a Joint Committee of both Houses made up of Members with the necessary experience and properly resourced, with informed and expert advice for overseeing what is a Herculean task.
There is no timescale associated with achieving the Bill’s objectives and it is not inconceivable that little, if anything, will change. I do also worry about how all this is going to be resourced. It can already take months for regulators to approve senior appointments and transactions in regulated businesses, damaging their ability to operate effectively. The FCA has itself acknowledged that it is underresourced to perform its existing responsibilities. This House and the other place have, on numerous occasions, raised the politically exposed persons regime as it affects Members of Parliament and their families to no clear purpose, but nothing has changed. Nothing has been done about it.
The ECB rules on capital, which limit lending by smaller banks to housebuilders as a result of abuses in Spain and Ireland, continue to apply in the UK at a time when the Government’s policy requires more housing. It is far more profitable for banks to lend money for mortgages than to build houses, so why are we surprised by the consequent increases in house prices? The countercyclical capital requirements now being introduced as the country experiences recession will require banks to hold more capital, restricting increased lending by smaller banks when so many good businesses need a lifeline. It seems unwise to me but neither the Treasury nor Parliament can do anything about it as the regulator’s independence is not to be questioned. I hope that, during the remaining stages of this Bill, my noble friend the Minister will address these issues.
Brexit presents us with many opportunities, including the chance for Parliament to unleash the talent and expertise of the City. However, I fear that this Bill needs to focus more clearly on execution and delivery. “Doing nothing often leads to the very best of something” might have been good enough for Winnie-the-Pooh but it will not be for us if we are to succeed as a nation.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth; I absolutely agree with his comments and those of other noble Lords as to the importance of taking action during the passage of this Bill in terms of the parliamentary accountability gap that currently exists.
At COP 26 in Glasgow, the then Chancellor—now the Prime Minister—pledged to make the UK
“the world’s first net-zero aligned financial centre.”
That pledge reflected both the necessity and opportunity for this country to embrace green growth. The potential benefits of the UK being a global centre for financial flows, which will power the economy of the future, are huge. Embracing innovation and private investment to scale up new technologies can bring sustainable jobs and growth, far from being a barrier to growth, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, suggested.
According to analysis by McKinsey, the supply of goods and services to enable the global net-zero transition could be worth £l trillion to UK businesses by 2030. However, the UK financial services industry will not be able to fulfil the Prime Minister’s pledge unless it has both the right regulatory framework to support it so to do and the policy certainty and long-term trajectory that give business the confidence to invest. As the helpful briefing for this debate from Aviva makes clear,
“a booming UK green finance sector requires a transparent and trusted market that combats greenwashing, has clear standardised metrics, and levels the playing field to reward rather than penalise early action.”
I fear that, as currently drafted, this Bill is a missed opportunity. For example, consideration of nature appears to be entirely absent from the Bill, and with it the chance for our financial sector to scale up the nascent and fast-growing nature-based solutions market. While we delay, other countries are making leaps ahead in green finance. Both France and Germany have given their regulators statutory objectives linked to climate change and sustainability.
I know that the Minister spoke in her opening speech about the inclusion of a climate change regulatory principle but, as others have said, this is just one of seven regulatory principles that sit beneath the regulator’s main strategic and operational objectives and is much weaker than if the Bill had contained a clear climate objective. I am sure that the issues as to the hierarchy of priorities and the trade-offs between the objectives, the secondary objective and the principles contained in this Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, mentioned these—are matters to which the Committee will give great attention during the Bill’s passage.
I fear that the Bill also misses the opportunity to progress previously announced policy steps to align our financial services sector with net zero, notably the commitment to require all UK-regulated financial institutions and publicly listed companies to publish net-zero transition plans by 2023. This Bill is the obvious place to legislate for that policy yet it is silent. Progress has also stalled on taking forward the UK sustainability disclosure requirements and the UK taxonomy. An updated green finance strategy has been promised but not yet published. All this delay risks sending a signal to our financial sector and internationally that the Government are unsure about whether they are truly committed to being a leader in green finance.
Yet businesses are calling for clear, consistent policy and long-term financing frameworks. The CBI has said that
“the big policy lever that’s missing is around green growth”
and that businesses are “confused and disappointed” that the Government appear to be going backwards on their green growth agenda. We need strong leadership, a sense of direction and clarity from the Government. With so much to be gained from creating the right regulatory framework to allow our financial sector to capitalise on the green transition and the many investment and growth opportunities, I am really worried that we will not move at pace to become the world’s first net- zero financial centre. If we do not move at pace and decisively, others will beat us to it; all the competitiveness objectives in the world will not change that.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, theologians sometimes discuss the personal and social ethics in the teaching of Christ under the three headings of money, sex and power, those three areas which can be the most extraordinary gift and blessing when used rightly and for the common good but which, when they are an end in themselves, can become extraordinarily disruptive. Of these three areas, Christ had most to say about money, as its use reveals our values as individuals and as a society, often in a very stark way. A close reading of this Bill reveals a set of cultural assumptions and values about what is considered important and valuable. There are four areas that I want to highlight and which we need to consider if a growing and vibrant financial sector will work for the common good.
First, on crypto asset regulation, as others have said, we need to act fast both to protect our citizens and so that we do not fall behind the rest of the world. The problem at the moment is that the almost complete lack of regulation means that, for many people, crypto- currencies are just another form of gambling. The recent collapse of FTX has demonstrated the volatility of this market and its vulnerability to fraud. Some have made a fortune, while others have lost their life savings and will now be looking to the state to provide for them. Just as we need a sensible and balanced approach to the regulation of online gambling, so we need sensible, balanced regulation of crypto- currencies. The provision in this Bill to ensure that crypto is treated as a regulated activity and giving the FCA and the PSR the power and, as others have noted, the resources to do their work and to protect customers, is welcome.
Secondly, His Majesty’s Government’s laudable levelling-up agenda needs to ensure access to cash. Here I declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition. Over 8 million people across the UK rely on cash, primarily the elderly or those who live in rural areas or not-spots, where you cannot get online. Poorer areas are being dominated by pay-to-use cash machines, which hit poorest people the hardest. Research indicates that the most deprived areas are dominated by private operators charging those most affected by the cost of living crisis to withdraw cash. This is the poverty premium, where the poorest are forced to pay more for essential services. When the Minister sums up, can she tell us whether the FCA is under the same obligation as government departments to rural-proof the regulations that it makes about access to cash? If not, will this requirement be introduced?
Thirdly, I welcome the proposal for credit unions and urge His Majesty’s Government to explore ways in which we can encourage their growth. The Church of England has been involved in a very large project using the insights of credit unions in our secondary schools to teach financial literacy, and to teach young people how to handle cash and their money and how to plan responsibly. We need to build on this work urgently.
Fourthly, on green and zero carbon, it is more urgent than ever that we introduce mandatory net-zero transition plans, so that large companies report on how they will manage the transition to net zero. We are told that the Bill will update
“the objectives of the financial services regulators to ensure a greater focus on long-term growth and international competitiveness.”
However, if we are to fulfil our COP 26 commitments, it will also need a secondary statutory objective to protect and restore nature and deliver a net-zero economy. There is much to be welcomed here, but there is a great deal more work to be done.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my financial services and legal interests as set out in the register, and that I am co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Insurance and Financial Services.
As many speakers have pointed out, this Bill represents a golden opportunity to adapt to the new reality of post-Brexit and, we hope, post-pandemic life. Financial services provide over a million jobs directly across the UK, amounting to 8% of GDP. It is a success story and vital to our welfare. However—we must stop deluding ourselves about this, if any of us still do—the UK is not pre-eminent in the world of financial services. Too much of the big reinsurance work in particular is going elsewhere. There is far too weak a partnership between government and the sector, if indeed there is any meaningful partnership at all. We still await a definitive sustainable financial services deal with the European Union. We also need the right infrastructure and the right tax system.
It is all about having a vision, but it is also about regulatory culture. I use “culture” advisedly. If this legislation fails to address not only the letter of regulatory law but the culture of the regulators, it will have failed. Effective, proportionate, efficient and good regulation is about having the confidence to strip away unnecessary redundant regulation as well as policing necessary regulation. That in turn is about having the right people and the right relationships. I refer not to cosy deals over the third cognac in the Reform Club but to brisk, efficient, timely, professional, mutually respectful regulation, with each side having a lively but robust appreciation of how the other operates.
I strongly welcome the new objectives on competitiveness and growth. Effective regulation should enable the sector to burnish its reputation for efficiency, innovation and integrity. It can also reduce costs, thereby improving access to goods and services. I hope that the necessary metrics can be crafted to provide reassurance that the regulators really do act on these new secondary objectives. I acknowledge and respect the concerns of those who feel that the commitment to growth feels a little bald and even old-fashioned in the light of climate change. I reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Hayman, that I am constantly struck by how seriously climate change is being taken by a sector that is literally, as well as figuratively, right in the eye of the storm. Financial services growth is increasingly, of necessity, green growth.
Finally, as senior independent director of LINK, I welcome the fact that for the first time ever the concept of access to cash and a right to access it will be enshrined in law. As the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, pointed out, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has just mentioned, for millions of people cash is a vital part of day-to-day life. Younger consumers may brush off credit card fraud and the panoply of pins and passwords as a necessary if tiresome aspect of modern life, but for many older citizens all that is an undiscovered country, and one that will remain undiscovered. Sadly, there is no such thing as a free cash withdrawal. The banking hubs have been slow to get moving, bank branches continue to close, and the economic situation squeezes the independent ATM providers more and more.
This Bill barely marks the end of the beginning for this task. I hope that it will be seen as an important milestone. I wish it safe passage and a successful arrival in port.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, the Second Reading of this Bill in the other place on 7 September was just one day after Liz Truss became Prime Minister, and just two weeks before her disastrous mini-Budget which has left millions of families facing frightening hikes in their mortgage payments. The reaction of the markets caused far more damage in one day than industrial action has over months. Markets are not democratic or accountable and, even before this Bill, are only lightly regulated.
The 50 leading economists who signed the letter to the now Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in May 2022 warned that competitiveness is an inappropriate objective for regulators. They called it a recipe for excessive risk taking that could harm the real economy and reduce economic growth, and said that it was a poorly defined and confusing objective to give a regulator. The most worrying comment coming from across the spectrum of economists was that encouraging competitiveness as outlined in this Bill could result in the same conditions that led to the crisis of 2007.
The case for giving the FCA the task of ensuring competitiveness is at odds with its primary function of regulation. Few are convinced by the Government’s claim that this will not result in a race to the bottom. Evidence shows that lack of regulation results in bigger risk taking for short-term financial gain, at the expense of the rest of society. As Einstein warned us, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
I move on to access to cash. The Government have stated that the Bill will ensure that people across the UK continue to be able to access their own cash with ease. However, there is no end in sight to bank branch closures and the removal of free-to-use ATMs. The seven big banks have already earmarked 193 branches for closure during 2023. There is overwhelming evidence, as has been cited from around this House, that the less well-off suffer most from difficulties in accessing cash.
So it was with dismay that I heard the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Richard Fuller, say at Second Reading:
“When I say ‘access to cash’ I mean access to cash. My hon. Friend raises the question of whether that access should be free … I cannot give him that assurance at this stage.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/22; col. 285.]
That, together with the dismissive response from Sheldon Mills from the FCA to the Bill Committee on 19 October, when he was asked about having regard to inclusion, demonstrated a lack of understanding of the impact on people in more deprived areas. That is not acceptable. We expect a much greater commitment to free access to cash to be included in the Bill.
I am sure that, after today’s debate, the Minister will understand that there are some aspects of the Bill that are unacceptable and need to be substantially amended. I look forward to seeing these concerns addressed in Committee. I also look forward with interest to the maiden speeches today, particularly at this point to that of the noble Lord, Lord Remnant.
Lord Remnant (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour and privilege to make my maiden speech today on this important Bill, in which I declare my interest as a director of Prudential and chairman of Coutts. When I remarked to a friend that I was waiting to speak on a topic of which I had some knowledge, if not expertise, he rather acidly observed that it would then be a very long time before your Lordships heard from me.
I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for their support and encouragement in the last few months. I am also extremely grateful to all the officers and staff, particularly the doorkeepers and police officers, who have been so helpful in their advice and guidance.
The first Lord Remnant was my great-grandfather. He represented Holborn in the Commons for 28 years, from 1900 to 1928. He is perhaps best known for introducing successfully—but against much opposition, I regret to say—a Bill guaranteeing members of the police force one day’s rest off duty in every seven.
My father was a more infrequent attender, but I well remember sitting on the steps of the Throne, as my son does now, listening to his maiden speech in a debate on invisible exports, which I hope meant more to their Lordships at the time than it did to me as a callow youth.
As for myself, I followed my father into the City, as a chartered accountant and then an investment banker. Since then, I have sat on the boards of major listed financial services companies and so have long been subject to the rules of our financial regulators. I have also been a regulator myself: last year, I stepped down from the Takeover Panel after 10 years as deputy chair.
At the time of the financial crisis, I was working within government as chairman of the Shareholder Executive. I then sat on the board of UKFI, which was responsible for the Government’s shareholdings in the banks, and I was also appointed to the board of Northern Rock as one of the two Government-appointed directors. I can then perhaps view this Bill through the lens of both a regulator and a regulatee, and from the perspective of government, setting a framework which strives to find the right balance between the two.
The overarching objective of this Bill must be to deliver positive change and protection for individuals and business. To achieve this, we must maintain the high regulatory standards that are a cornerstone of the current regime and boost the competitiveness of the UK globally. These two aims need not conflict with each other. Indeed, they should be complementary. Further, there is a quid pro quo for the independence of our regulatory regime which underpins its effectiveness, and that is appropriate scrutiny and accountability of the regulators and their powers.
My main focus is on the regulatory framework proposed and its implications. Of particular note is the introduction of a secondary objective for the PRA and the FCA to promote the sector’s international competitiveness to support long-term growth. This will give business the confidence to expand and invest in the future.
This is an objective which would be by no means unique to the UK. Indeed, it is established globally. My own current experience is in the Far East, where Hong Kong, Singapore and others all have the promotion of economic growth and/or competitiveness as a key objective. This leads to a congruence of interests between industry and regulators, promoting greater access to financial services and improved client offerings.
So, this is a very positive additional dimension to the conduct and capital and solvency rules which should be the prime role of a regulator. Importantly, the Bill proposes economic growth and international competitiveness as a secondary objective. I believe this to be an appropriate balance. All investments carry risk. If the system is such that it effectively mandates regulators to use their powers only to reduce, if not eliminate, risk, the result is likely to be reduced innovation, increased costs and less consumer choice.
The prime responsibility for taking appropriate risk within established risk appetite must lie with companies themselves, in accordance with rules made by regulators and those within a framework set by Parliament. This new secondary goal will mandate our regulators, in the exercise of their powers, to consider proportionality and global competitiveness.
This Bill transfers significant additional powers to our regulators, as EU regulation is transferred from the statute book to the regulators’ rulebooks. So, it is also right that there should be a commensurate increase in accountability and transparency. We need a regime which balances consumer benefits with regulatory burden and cost. Too often, rules expand in response to a perceived problem but there is little analysis of the often greater cost of regulatory intervention.
Therefore, I am very much in favour of the additional reporting requirements which have been introduced into the Bill at this stage, and the strengthening of cost-benefit analysis through the creation of new CBA panels. At a later stage there will be the opportunity to clarify and strengthen these specific proposals further, and to enhance the scope of parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be receptive to this.
I believe that these proposals overall are balanced and pragmatic. The Bill lays the foundation for a more competitive financial services sector, without compromising the UK’s high regulatory standards, which can now be tailored to our own specific needs.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, it is a special pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Remnant. His eloquent maiden speech clearly demonstrates his deep expertise in financial services. This should be of no surprise to your Lordships, because the City is truly part of his DNA. I had the pleasure of serving on the board of the Shareholder Executive under my noble friend’s chairmanship, and I have witnessed at close quarters his knowledge and integrity. His presence in your Lordships’ House will contribute massively to our wisdom and expertise. I welcome him.
This is an important Bill. The financial services industry is our most important industry. It is a huge driver of economic activity, it creates high-quality jobs throughout the UK and the taxes it pays underpin our ability to provide public services. It is therefore even more remarkable that Governments have paid so little attention to the City in recent years. For example, too little priority was given to the City in the Brexit negotiations, and in general Ministers have shown a marked reluctance to support the industry through either words or deeds. At times, I have even felt that Ministers were almost ashamed of the City’s existence. Partly as a consequence of this, it is no longer the global force it was. This decline will continue unless something is done about it. Action is urgently needed. Speaking as a former chair of TheCityUK and of two of our largest financial services firms, I have to say that this is a very sorry state of affairs.
This Bill provides the potential to remedy matters. Whether it succeeds in this will depend critically on whether the secondary legislation and rulebooks which will come in its wake, as well as ensuring financial stability and consumer protection, will allow the industry to flourish and remain globally competitive.
Enacting this Bill will, though, mean that the success of our most important industry will rest more than ever on the shoulders of its myriad regulators. The challenge is that our regulatory regimes are not best in class and, despite the many talented people who work for them, neither are our regulators. We have to do something about this. We have created a culture, not just in financial services but elsewhere in our economy, that too often has allowed and, indeed, encouraged regulators to operate in a bubble of their own making. This has no doubt often been rather convenient for Ministers because they have been able to hide behind this bubble.
Your Lordships know what a strong supporter I am of regulatory autonomy, but that autonomy must be exercised within an envelope set by Parliament, with proper accountability and transparency and subject to strong and continuous independent oversight by people who know what they are talking about. No regulator is an island.
Late last year, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury exchanged letters with the CEOs of the PRA and the FCA about the need for world-leading levels of regulatory operational effectiveness. I congratulate him on this initiative. It is interesting that, in his reply, the CEO of the FCA highlighted that it is the FCA board that has statutory responsibility for overseeing the effective use of the FCA’s resources. As an exemplar, this caused me to look at the membership of that board. Although I have no doubt that its independent members fulfil their roles diligently and exercise due care and attention, it is striking that, according to their bios on the FCA website, not one seems to have served on the board of any UK-listed company. I also note that the incoming chairman of the FCA, who again is no doubt very able, has spent the last 20 years of his professional life in Hong Kong—a city I know well, but which is, to say the least, a rather different environment from the City. It is all rather surprising.
I would be very interested if my noble friend the Minister, in responding to this debate, could let us know whether she is satisfied that the FCA board and the other boards that oversee our regulators have the firepower to carry out their appointed tasks.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interests as president of the Money Advice Trust and as a member of the Financial Inclusion Commission. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, on his excellent maiden speech.
Although I welcome the Bill overall as an opportunity to strengthen and improve the regulation of the UK’s financial services, in too many places it feels like a missed opportunity. I will focus my remarks on financial inclusion, where I feel the Bill currently falls shorts in important respects. I make no apology for this emphasis, given the huge power imbalance that exists between banks and other financial services providers, who have plenty of people to speak on their behalf, and vulnerable customers, who have far less of a voice in these debates.
As highlighted so compellingly this afternoon, the lack of focus on improving the transparency and accountability of the regulators, and on giving Parliament greater powers of scrutiny, sadly runs through the Bill like a stick of rock. I hope we will be able to redress this balance as it progresses.
The 2017 Lords Select Committee on Financial Exclusion, which I had the privilege to chair, called on the Government to set out a clear strategy for improving financial inclusion in the UK. Without such a strategy, it is simply not possible to make the progress needed to ensure that everyone can access the financial services they need at a price they can afford. The committee also recommended that the Government expand the FCA’s remit to include a statutory duty to promote financial inclusion as one of its key objectives. These key recommendations were reiterated in the 2021 follow-up Liaison Committee report. I readily acknowledge that setting up a Financial Inclusion Policy Forum in response to the Select Committee report provides welcome discussion of some of these issues, but it is no substitute for a government-led strategy, alongside a regulator that has statutory responsibility for ensuring that financial inclusion plays a part in its everyday operations.
We now have the opportunity to plug the “black hole”, as I often call it, that exists between social policy and financial regulation. We have heard time and again how consumer groups are passed between government departments and the FCA, with no one institution willing to act; and how the Treasury refuses to act on well-known issues such as the poverty premium, which we have heard about this afternoon, until enough data is collected, when the only organisation able to obtain this data is the FCA, which in turn says it is not its remit to collect such data.
The Bill provides the opportunity to plug this gap and prevent the most vulnerable falling through the cracks. By giving the FCA a cross-cutting “must have regard” to financial inclusion duty, along with a requirement to publish findings, it will have the ability and incentive to ensure that the needs of those currently denied access due to affordability issues are considered. This will allow clarity on how far market regulation can address financial exclusion and where government-instigated social policy is needed. I will bring forward amendments on this in Committee.
Turning briefly to the duty of care, another Select Committee recommendation, I concur completely with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Sharkey. A consumer duty as brought forward by the FCA is not a duty of care. The former has many exemptions and does not provide wronged consumers with the right to secure monetary redress through litigation. For accountability and parliamentary sovereignty, it is a matter of real concern that, after Parliament passed the Financial Services Act, placing a duty on the FCA to consult and bring forward rules on a duty of care, it chose not to. This Bill provides an opportunity to remedy this unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Finally, I turn briefly to access to cash. I welcome the commitment to legislate to give consumers greater protection in accessing and depositing cash. It is long overdue. Difficulties in accessing cash by the 5 million people—I know other figures have been quoted, but that is the figure I have—who still rely on it have grown hugely in recent years. The UK has lost half its bank branch network since 2015 and there has been a 25% decline in free-to-use ATMs since 2018. It is a particular problem for many of the elderly, those with certain physical disabilities and mental health conditions, and those in deprived communities who are digitally excluded and financially vulnerable. I hope to see more action in this area, including extending the FCA’s remit to consider other services that should also be protected. I would like to see the Bill guaranteeing a minimum level of free cash access services and local authorities having the right to request a review of local cash provision.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, on his maiden speech. As it happens, I have often heard him speak before, but always in a frivolous context, so I was awaiting his speech today with particular interest—and he did not disappoint. As the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, said, his expertise will be a great asset to this House as we consider the Bill.
The regulatory issues have been well identified in the speeches that have been made. There seems to me to be three types of balance: the balance between freedom and regulation; the balance between regulatory independence and the role of the Executive; and the balance between the Executive and Parliament. It is particularly important that we get this balance right in debating this Bill about an industry which is of such huge importance to the British economy and where international competition is so very strong.
I welcome the Bill; it has much to be commended in it. In the first place, it is based on a proper examination of the regulations inherited from the EU. That included extensive consultation with practitioners in the future regulatory framework review between 2019 and 2022. In this respect, it is markedly different from the cavalier attitude taken by the Government in other areas of inherited EU law in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Secondly, although I have not always agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on Brexit, I think it is a particularly important and welcome benefit of Brexit that the United Kingdom has the freedom to establish our own regulatory regime without being bound by some of the more ponderous regulations of the European supervisory authorities. However, that freedom needs to be exercised with prudence.
There has been much reference to the provision in the Bill to give regulators a new statutory objective to promote the international competitiveness and growth of the UK economy with special reference to the financial services industry. That objective has been generally welcomed, but as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, the Government owe us an explanation. Before the 2008 crisis, the Financial Services Authority, the predecessor of the FCA and the PRA, had a duty merely to “have regard to” the competitiveness of the UK financial services sector. In the post-mortem on the 2008 crisis, the Treasury recognised this obligation as a factor in regulatory failure leading up to that crisis and, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, it was consequently removed from the regulatory remit by the Treasury and Parliament. Just over a decade later, Ministers are seeking to give the regulators a stronger statutory requirement to make sure that their regulatory activities promote the international competitiveness of the financial services sector, not just to have regard to it. I ask the Minister to explain, in replying to the debate, why the Government have concluded that this reversal is safe.
In the proceedings on the Bill we will be debating the degree of delegation of powers to regulators, the balance between the Treasury’s power to make recommendations to the regulators and the regulators’ independence, and the mechanisms for Parliament to oversee these important operations. However, we have to recognise that parliamentary control, to which there has been much reference, is made worse by Parliament’s own procedures. Even when Parliament is given a role in approving statutory instruments, Parliament’s inability to amend such instruments, and its unwillingness to reject them, makes such power purely nominal. The remedy for that lies in our own hands.
Having said that, I believe that there is much to support in the Bill. Although there are plenty of issues for the House to consider and debate, I regard this as an important Bill, and I welcome it.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Remnant on his maiden speech and, in particular, on the depth of that speech in relation to the Bill we have before us this evening. I hope he will contribute in Committee.
My primary congratulations go to His Majesty’s Government. I have had the privilege of serving in the other place and here for 48 and a half years, and I do not think there has been a Bill as helpful to the City of London as this Bill has the ability to be. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench, and to the whole of her team, well done on actually producing a Bill that is going to help the City of London. There have been a whole lot of positive reactions from the financial services market and from the City itself. I shall pick out just two that I received. First, “The City welcomes the creation of a more nimble, agile and proportionate regulatory regime for the implementation of the FCA’s and PRA’s growth and competitive secondary objective, alongside improving the speed of FCA authorisation turnaround times”. That is a bit mechanical, but it is very important. Equally, and even more important, probably—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman referred to this—on the issue of the green area, “The world’s financial system through engaging internationally has to facilitate international standards and global alignment, ensuring that the ESG taxonomies are interoperable”. That seems to me absolutely vital. So much for the congratulations.
The other dimension that I noted the other day is the 30 Edinburgh reforms that the Chancellor has brought forward, almost—but not—on the sly. There is no doubt that they are important. One will drive investment into UK growth companies, in particular the new guidance for asset pooling of local government pension schemes—I declare an interest as a trustee of the parliamentary pension scheme. I can assure my noble friend that it is much needed and to be welcomed. I noticed that the leaders involved in this have got together and set up an organisation called the UK Capital Markets Industry Taskforce. That in itself is enormously welcome.
I want primarily to comment on an area that nobody has mentioned to date, thankfully. For some 25 years, I have been involved in the mutual movement. I had the privilege of being the chairman of the Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society for just over 10 years. As my noble friend on the Front Bench knows, at the moment a Private Member’s Bill from Sir Mark Hendrick, the Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Bill, is going through the Commons. It is there to deal with the scandal, frankly, of the demutualisation of mainly our building societies, which was not to the benefit of investors in the building societies but for somebody else to turn a penny—or several pounds. In its present form, that Bill will match the best legislation that exists in many other countries. It also introduces a voluntary power to enable a mutual to choose a constitutional change so that its legacy assets would be non-distributable, details precisely the destination of any capital surplus on a solvent winding up, and outlines the procedures in the mutual’s moves. That is a major step forward, and I very much hope His Majesty’s Government get it on the statute book. It will certainly have my support.
Secondly, there is the position of raising capital for the mutual movement. I had a Bill, which is on the statute book as the Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Act 2015. It was welcomed by all parties but unfortunately has been bogged down somewhere in the system and very little capital, if any, has been raised by the mutual movement. I understand that the Government are thinking of asking the Law Commission to look at that. I say to my noble friend that that is kicking it into the long grass a bit. I hope we can look at it again.
Finally, we come to the regulatory dimension. It seems to me, as one who sat on the Public Accounts Committee in the other place for some 12 years, that the reason that succeeds is that it is basically backed up by a government body providing the evidence. Maybe that framework is something we should look at. Something certainly needs to be done. We have listened enough this evening to know that movement in that area is absolutely vital.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, to the House and thank him for his excellent maiden speech.
This is not a Bill that will clean up the City, enhance its accountability or streamline the regulatory architecture. There are at least 41 overlapping and buck-passing regulators. These include the Bank of England, the FCA, the PRA, 25 anti-money laundering regulators, OPBAS, the Pensions Regulator, the Pension Protection Fund and sundry others, all poorly co-ordinated. The enforcement architecture is also fragmented. It involves the SFO, the Crown Prosecution Service, the FCA, the National Crime Agency, the Bank of England, the Treasury, the Home Office and God knows who else. Can the Minister explain why this potholed regulatory architecture will not hinder the Bill’s objectives?
The FCA has been severely criticised for its failures in episodes such as Connaught, London Capital & Finance, Blackmore Bond, the Woodford fund and Link Fund Solutions. The Work and Pensions Committee’s July 2021 report relating to protecting pension savers said that the FCA’s evidence lacked integrity. John Swift KC’s December 2021 review into the supervisory intervention on interest rate hedging products criticised the FCA. The National Audit Office investigation into the British Steel Pension Scheme was also critical of the FCA. Can the Minister tell us why the Bill has not been preceded by an inquiry into the operational efficiency of the FCA?
The regulatory apparatus in this country is adept at sweeping things under its dust-laden carpets. Indeed, the Government themselves have done that. They have a history of shielding banks engaged in “criminal conduct”. A good example is that of HSBC, which the Bank of England, the Treasury and the then banking regulator colluded to cover up. This week the Times reported that Barclays, HSBC, NatWest, Standard Chartered and Lloyds are facing nearly 100 lawsuits, mostly in the US, for violating competition law, fixing prices, interest and exchange rate violations, sanction busting and terrorist financing, yet we have not heard a peep about it from anybody in the UK. As usual, they think things will go away. The Bill dilutes the current regulatory system and even eliminates the modicum of independence enjoyed by regulators by empowering Ministers to direct the FCA. Ministers’ objectives are entirely different from the regulators’.
Since 2015, 4,685 bank branches—almost half—have closed. Many districts and villages do not have a physical bank branch and millions cannot access online banking, so it is hard to see how the FCA is promoting effective competition when people just cannot access banking services. Can the Minister explain how the Government are dealing with disappearing bank branches?
The Bill adds an international competitiveness element to the FCA’s remit—something that was removed after the last crash, as others have said. This really opens the floodgates to reckless practices. The regulator would need to look at what Cayman, Bermuda, Belize and other jurisdictions are doing and use those as a benchmark to recalibrate UK regulation. This is ultimately a race to the bottom and will surely undermine the prime objective of securing financial stability.
The collapse of FTX and other companies has led to losses of nearly $1 trillion, which shows that crypto assets and currencies are highly dangerous. Yet instead of banning these dreamt-up currencies, the Bill legitimises the trade. That will send a message to ordinary people that it is perfectly safe to hold and trade in those assets. After all, it is regulated. The ultimate result will be that, before long, the regulators will be paying millions of pounds in compensation. I urge the Minister to reconsider this part of the Bill, because it could well be the beginning of the next crash. In due course, I will table a number of amendments.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I need to begin by reminding the House that I have two interests. I am an approved person under the FCA rules, and I chair a regulated firm.
The Bill is big and important. I always felt that the task of trying to create a Europe-wide regulatory structure to deal with the many different types of financial markets—from quite small and unsophisticated to quite big, as we see in London—was going to be a big ask. Therefore, I was not surprised when we found a number of pinch points, many of which did not operate to London’s advantage. Given that the Bill’s strategic objective is to onshore our regulation, to get rid of one size fits all and to operate within a risk-based assessment framework appropriate to London, I support the Bill.
There are lots of things I would like to talk about, but I have only five minutes. I would like to talk about cash and the role of MiFID II, but I will focus on process. Here I follow the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Butler. How do we get from here to there? What is the process to be followed? How is it envisaged that Parliament will play a role in the process envisaged under Chapter 1, Revocation of Retained EU Law? As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, pointed out, this Bill is a carve-out of a much larger Bill that will come before your Lordships’ House in a few weeks.
I chair the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and we have been taking evidence from Ministers on some of the practical aspects behind the Government’s thinking. I suspect that not many of us—not even my noble friend Lord Forsyth—who voted for Brexit thought that this risked handing powers from Brussels to Whitehall without any serious effective parliamentary scrutiny or involvement along the way.
I have made a rough count of the number of regulations listed in Parts 1 to 3 of Schedule 1; there are, I think, 246. Some of these will be technical and of no significance; others will not. It is this fact that makes the Bill a framework Bill. At the moment of passing the Bill, Parliament will not know what it is signing up to. That is really important. Will all of these 250 or so regulations be treated in the same way? There appears to be no triaging process to sort the important ones from the less important ones. I fear that the idea of saying “Affirmative resolutions go this way, and negative resolutions go that way” may not be sufficient in as complex an exercise as this.
There is a widespread view—again, pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in his remarks—that the existing parliamentary powers for scrutinising secondary legislation are inadequate for the increasingly heavy weights being placed upon them. When my noble friend the Minister comes to wind up, will she tell the House what supporting documentation will be made available in respect of each regulation, to aid parliamentary scrutiny? Under current law, any regulation that carries an impact of more than £5 million is required to have a specific impact assessment, tabled at the time the regulation is laid. If this is now not to be the case, there is a real danger of Parliament being effectively muted.
Secondly, an important statutory requirement is the provision of post- implementation reviews. Post-implementation reviews decide where hope and expectation met reality and how they clashed. If we are not going to have post-implementation reviews—PIRs—then the opportunity for improving government performance will be greatly missed.
Finally, there is the question of tertiary legislation. Tertiary legislation is where the Government hand away the pen to another body, usually having very little if any democratic accountability. Despite that, the laws and regulations that these bodies produce bind us all just as tightly as any other law. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm my understanding that, under Clause 4, all tertiary legislation will be subject only to the negative procedure? If I am right about that, then I am afraid I shall regard this as a very disappointing response.
To conclude, I support the direction of travel of the Bill but, as we enter this brave new world, we should at the same time not allow the role of Parliament to examine, scrutinise and hold the Government to account to be further reduced.
Lord Ashcombe (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour to speak to you today for the first time, concerning the Financial Services and Markets Bill being introduced by the Minister, my noble friend Lady Penn. Before continuing I must declare my interest as an employee of Marsh Limited, the insurance broker.
I would like to take a moment to thank the many who have shown me huge kindness on my arrival in the House feeling like the new schoolboy all over again. I thank the doorkeepers, clerks, special advisers, librarians and Black Rod for their generous advice on so many issues. In particular, I would like to thank my noble friends Lord Glenarthur, Lord Ashton, Lord Borwick and Lady Sanderson, who have encouraged me and given me great help and guidance. Finally, without the help of the Opposition Chief Whip, I think I would still be wandering the passages of this labyrinthine building even now, two months later, yet to be discovered, totally lost. I hope he does not regret it.
The Cubitt dynasty was founded by Thomas Cubitt, who was the first to establish the building contracting business as we know it today. In the process, he became one of the great developers of early 19th century London, including in the development of the Grosvenor estate from Belgravia to the Thames. Two of his best-known buildings are the east front of Buckingham Palace and Osborne on the Isle of Wight. It was not he who was awarded the Ashcombe peerage but his son, my great-great-grandfather, in 1892. George Cubitt served in the House of Commons for over 30 years followed by 25 years in this House. His son Henry followed in his footsteps but was very unfortunate in that he lost his first three sons in the Great War. They are remembered on the Royal Gallery memorial. In 1920, the family building company built the Lutyens-designed Cenotaph in Whitehall.
I inherited not from my father but from his first cousin. I was brought up in the Republic of Ireland and took a civil engineering degree here, then entered the world of insurance where I have spent 35 years working in the energy sector. It is the insurance aspect that brings me here today. Many of us have experience dealing with personal insurance but there is a great deal more to the subject than that. Insurance is one of the country’s greatest economic strengths and a source of vital capital to an increasingly fractious global risk landscape.
Indeed, without the abilities of the London insurance market, grain and other vital foodstuffs trapped in Ukraine would not have been exported last year to those countries desperately in need of food; as the sanctions start to bite there have been many restrictions put in place, but the market has responded by continuing to provide insurance on a humanitarian basis. Also, development and investment in new technologies would be significantly reduced. An example of the London market innovation is the provision of insurance for the surge in green and blue hydrogen prototypical initiatives to reduce carbon footprints and combat climate change.
Insurance has often been portrayed as the poor relation of the City of London. However, this financial sector today employs almost 50,000 people. We have the highest concentration of insurance-related intellectual capital, experience, insurers, brokers and affiliated professional services. This is what makes London a world-leading global insurance market. Using 2020 data, the London market share of the worldwide premium is in excess of $120 billion, although the market share of 7.6% has been static over the last five years. It is larger than its next three competitor markets—Bermuda, Singapore and Zurich—combined but is continually being challenged. The sector generated 24% of the City’s GDP and just under 1.8% of the United Kingdom’s GDP.
One of the secondary objectives of this Bill is for the regulators to promote the growth and competitiveness of the UK economy. An area where the London market has no participation is captive insurance companies. This would certainly be an opportunity for growth as it is a $54 billion industry. Even UK companies such as Network Rail and Transport for London have their captives in foreign jurisdictions. These captive insurance companies are designed to provide insurance to their parent company or its entity. It is no longer the tax legislation, an oft-cited reason for this being the case, but the regulatory hurdles, as the regulators treat them as commercial insurance companies.
Regulators will always remain an important part of the checks and balances of financial business, but they need to be proportionate in recognising that personal consumers need a greater level of protection than the more sophisticated companies, which have significant experience and take professional advice on how to manage their risk protection. It should not be one size fits all.
Secondly, the Bill currently allows the regulators to determine how they believe they have met the requirements of the competitiveness objective. This suggests that they can mark their own homework. Would it not be preferable to have a set of key performance indicators laid down in the Bill, by which they can be measured when reporting back to the Government and Parliament?
With these thoughts in mind, I thank noble Lords for this opportunity and look forward to supporting this Bill, promoting growth and competitiveness for our financial services industry and, ultimately, growing this vital sector of the economy.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, to welcome him to this House and to reflect that it really is a blessing for this Bill that there are three maiden speeches. My noble friend has spent his whole career in insurance. We nearly met around the age of 30, when he was working at Lloyd’s of London but he has always otherwise been at Marsh. He brings expertise to us in financial services that is often, as he said, a little overlooked.
In addition to insurance experience, it is worth adding that my noble friend brings us experience in energy. His whole career has been around energy, which we quite often talk about in this House. Energy and energy infrastructure are important, as is understanding how that infrastructure in this country is laid out. My noble friend brings us expertise in that area. Finally, I would mention that three noble Lords have already asked him for insurance advice. At this time of year, we all have to work out endorsements and exclusions in policies, with the small print and all the rest of it. We may have only one Peer—certainly one Peer in the Chamber today—who really understands this stuff. He would be welcoming of any inquiries as well. He is very welcome and I look forward to working with him for many years ahead, and indeed on the Bill.
Turning to the Bill, I declare my interests as a director of South Molton Street Capital, Financial Services Capital and, in Manchester, the Co-Operative Bank. In the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor reminded us of the importance of growth. He specifically referenced energy, broadband, road and rail. The shadow Chancellor has made some very similar comments, so it is particularly important that we reflect on how the Bill, among the other financial Bills that we have seen, can help to support that growth, in particular with reference to infrastructure. We see Bills come through the Chamber and imagine that they will be financed by somebody, but there is going to be a limit to how much the Government can really support infrastructure investment. The OBR has already said that the Government will need to reduce infrastructure spending in two years’ time.
This means that spending on infrastructure will rest on the private sector and unlocking that private sector capital really rests on the Bill, so it is very welcome that Chapter 3 makes reference to growth. As we know and have heard from many Peers, the regulators have been somewhat cautious and prudent, for the reasons well expressed. At this point, we need to find ways to unlock capital to support infrastructure and for the wider economy. We might look carefully at Chapter 3 and reflect on how to address the growth opportunity, but also some of the concerns expressed about adding risk, or the prudential issues, which have been well covered.
The regulatory environment needs to be a little refreshed. Nearly immediately after this Bill was started in the House of Commons, on 7 September, we ran into the extraordinary pension LDI debacle. This was around the time when the Bill was going into Committee. It is worth reflecting on how we got to this extraordinary situation, which in some ways arises from an abundance of caution; that is to say, it goes in several steps.
Step 1 was to require companies to reflect actuarial changes in the valuations of their pension funds in their annual accounts. These are modelled changes of future liabilities and, because rates were very low, those liabilities felt very high at the time. It was a prudent thing to do; at the same time, it was not commercial and did not reflect a broader commercial understanding.
Step 2 was, remarkably, to de-risk these funds—that is to say, de-risk them from the point of view of the company and not, incidentally, necessarily that of the beneficiaries—by moving them into gilts. There not being sufficient long-dated gilts, they were moved into derivatives of gilts. These funds were suddenly hugely invested in derivatives for the purpose of de-risking. Again, this de-risking looked somewhat prudent. It is not, as we know, but it looked somewhat prudent then. At the same time, these enormous funds, which are effectively closed—they are in run-off and are barely supervised, while their beneficiaries have little control of them—were invested in an enormous amount of financial derivatives.
Had this growth chapter been in place, some of this error might have been caught. We had an extraordinary situation whereby very large captive funds were not invested in long-dated investments in this country or in infrastructure; we also had the savings of Canadian public schoolteachers making long-dated investments in UK infrastructure, while the savings of our own teachers were put into financial derivatives. This extraordinary debacle is an illustration of how prudent, cautious, step-by-step regulation can lead you into enormous risks.
I commend and support the Bill, which is extremely well thought through and, as the Minister explained, has been broadly consulted on. But regarding Chapter 3 and growth, I hope we will discuss in Committee the opportunities to invest in infrastructure and perhaps to meet the green agenda, which has been mentioned—again, that is often infrastructure. In Chapter 3 lies an opportunity to direct financial regulation for the benefit of the economy and of this country, and to meet the needs of this Government and indeed the next Government.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate those who have just made their maiden speeches. Their expertise will be very welcome. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of values; others have made it clear that values and self-interest can and should be aligned.
My focus here will be on climate change and the transformative role the financial services sector can and must play in combating this. My question is therefore whether this comprehensive Bill helps to deliver the UK as a green finance centre, as the Government have promised. I noted that the Minister emphasised in her speech that our financial services need to be open and green, as well as technologically advanced.
We are familiar with the pledges agreed by Governments in 2015 in Paris, seeking to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees. We know how far we are from meeting that. Developed countries’ money and pledges are vital but will not deliver on the scale required. A key change that occurred at the Glasgow COP in 2021 was business and finance becoming involved, with outstanding leadership from Mark Carney. That is potentially transformative.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, pointed out, at COP 26 the Government committed to creating the world’s first net-zero-aligned financial centre and announced that they would mandate large companies to publish their net-zero transition plans and climate reporting standards. Rishi Sunak described the UK as
“the best place in the world for green finance”.
As a trade envoy, I noted the high reputation of the City of London. It needs to maintain that leading role. The Government also committed to match the ambition of the EU on green finance, with particular reference to disclosures of sustainability impacts and the development of a green taxonomy. The UK became the first G20 country to mandate its largest companies to disclose climate-related data.
At COP 26, the International Sustainability Standards Board was announced, to seek global harmonisation in this area. The UK needs to continue to play a leading role in that. Consumers, the public and investors are increasingly scrutinising the green credentials of companies and looking at what banks and funds are investing in. This is where the world is heading. The noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, has just made clear that the insurance industry is already addressing this. Just as we have seen that the decision to end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 has given a major boost to the EV sector, because the automotive industry can see which way it needs to head, the same clarity of intention is required in the financial sector. We need to ensure that regulation shows the direction of travel.
As Chris Skidmore has said in relation to his net zero review for the Government, we may be committed to net zero by 2050, but are the guardrails in place to deliver that? Those guardrails must include regulation. Therefore, what do we see in this legislation? As others have pointed out, the Bill states that regulators should only “have regard” to climate goals. There are seven other principles to which the regulators must also have regard. These are subsidiary to the strategic and operational objectives, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, my noble friend Lady Sheehan, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans have all pointed out. That must be addressed as this Bill goes through.
Shortly before this Bill was announced, it was reported that the Government had removed from the Bill the expected sustainable disclosure requirements. These would have required large companies and financial institutions to disclose and justify their environmental impacts, their alignment with the UK’s green taxonomy and their net zero transition plans. With the publication of their Greening Finance road map in 2021, the Government reaffirmed their commitment to developing a green taxonomy and sustainable disclosure requirements, yet these are delayed.
In the meantime, the EU has legislated in this area. We have already fallen behind, despite the Government’s declared ambitions. HSBC has just announced that it will no longer finance new oil and gas fields. That is the future. Others need to do likewise, with the transformative effect that will have. Regulation can spur that on. This Bill, replacing EU regulation with specific UK regulation, needs to make sure that the UK and London are forward looking, leading the way, modern and drawing in green investment and jobs. I can assure the Minister that there will therefore be amendments to this Bill in this vital area, so I suggest that she starts writing round now.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, on his maiden speech and in particular on drawing our attention to the importance of the insurance industry to London’s financial centre—which is often overlooked. I too welcome the Bill warmly and express my interest as chairman of the London Financial Markets Law Committee. I draw attention to that interest because, in the few minutes I have, I would like to ask some questions about the central issue in the Bill: the extent of delegation. How do we do it? How to we make it accountable? One must bear in mind that regulators have two functions. The first is to make law that is binding on us; the second is to interpret and enforce that law when there is a dispute.
I wish to ask four questions. First, are the powers that Parliament is giving to the regulators and delegating to them ones that they can exercise more appropriately than Parliament? The answer to that is generally “yes”, but when we look at certain detailed provisions we must ask: are they being asked to make political decisions—which would be wrong—or are we consigning decisions where we just have to hope that they do what they are asked because there is no accountability? The first question is intricately linked to accountability and a judgment on what is right.
Secondly, have we given the regulators a sufficiently clear mandate for the regulations they are to make? As the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Sharkey, pointed out, there are some contradictions in the Bill. Should we examine those and give clearer guidance? We should not complain hereafter if they tell us, “We’re independent, go away”. Another question which particularly interests lawyers is: are we to give more clear direction as to the type and format of regulation? Are they to follow what has become the traditional European and, to an extent, British Government way of writing long screeds of guidance rather than following good, Victorian principles of short, clearly drafted legislation? It is a question we ought to ask ourselves. Vast rulebooks are a complete disincentive to proper regulation. The more we delegate, the clearer the answer to that question has to be.
The third question we have to ask ourselves is: are we sure that enforcement and punishment for breaches are sufficiently independent of the regulators that make law? When we make law, we do not interpret it or punish people for breaching it; we give that to independent people. The more power we give regulators, the more we have to be satisfied that the interpretation is independent. You do not want a rulebook where people turn around and say, “I know it’s not clear, but we know what it means because we wrote it”. That is bad lawmaking. Of course, if we have not got that bit right and we do not have proper accountability, there is another problem.
That ties in with the fourth question. We must ask, in respect of all these provisions: is there sufficient accountability to Parliament, to outside bodies or through an independent enforcement agency separate from the lawmaking part? Having spent much of my professional life dealing with the fallout of regulatory failure, I have no doubt that most regulators are competent and hard-working and that they try their hardest to achieve a good result. However, their life is extremely difficult and, if I were a regulator, I would welcome with open arms proper scrutiny. They need all the help they can get. If you are truly independent—having spent much of my life as a judge, I have had to be independent—you always welcome people who cast a critical eye from the outside. The regulators, therefore, ought to welcome scrutiny and not oppose it.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register, in particular that I hold shares in a number of listed financial services companies. This Bill could certainly have been bolder, and it needs to be improved, but it also has my broad support. I would like to touch on just four aspects of the Bill in the short amount of time we have been allowed.
First, the competitiveness and growth secondary objective is welcome, if overdue. We must never forget that, without a strong economy—and in the context of the UK that inevitably means a strong financial services sector—there will be nothing worth regulating. The financial crisis led to a series of risk-averse reforms and a decade of regulatory gold-plating. It is no coincidence that the last decade has been disappointing in economic terms. We need a period of rebalancing.
However, whatever we do in the Bill will come to nought unless the regulators themselves change. I fear that they will find ways to marginalise the new secondary objective. We need them to put the interests of the UK ahead of the comfort blanket of precautionary regulation and, if necessary, to stand against the consensus in international regulatory fora, however comfortable that seems. The PRA’s public statements to date on what it will do with the new secondary objective and the FCA’s radio silence on the subject do not give me any comfort that they get what is needed.
The Government were right to bring forward amendments in the other place to strengthen the regulators’ reporting arrangements to reinforce the new objective. We will need to explore that in Committee to see how it will work in practice, and I suspect that we will conclude that it will need more teeth.
My second point relates to the role of Parliament. I am glad that the Government have finally accepted that there is an important role for Parliament in holding the regulators to account alongside the transfer of huge new rule-making powers. Most of us argued strongly for that in the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021. My noble friend the Minister will not be surprised that I am disappointed that the role of your Lordships’ House is something of an afterthought in Clause 36. I promise her that I will return in Committee not only to the role of your Lordships’ House but to the narrow construct of the remit for Parliament in that clause.
My third point concerns getting rid of retained EU law. Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Bill is very welcome. I fully accept that replacing retained EU law with something tailored to the circumstances of the UK is a large task, but the Bill needs the discipline of a deadline. The approach of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is what we should be seeking to replicate in this Bill.
My final point relates to access to cash, and I fear that I shall disappoint my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, who will speak after me. I fully accept that cash remains important to many people, but the fact is that the use of cash is in permanent secular decline. UK Finance expects only 6% of transactions to be in cash form by 2031, down from around 15% now. The Bill imposes costs on all consumers to maintain access to cash for a decreasing proportion of the population. The Access to Cash Review estimated the cost of providing cash at around £5 billion per annum—to put that in context, that is roughly equivalent to 1p on the basic rate of tax. Trying to preserve cash in our society, as if it is part of our national heritage, is just crazy. The Bill goes too far.
I end with a plea for the Government to bring forward a consolidation of financial services legislation. Most of the Bill comprises yet more alterations to FSMA 2000, which is itself already heavily amended. If now is not the right time for consolidation, will my noble friend the Minister say when that time will come?
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Second Reading debate and to follow my noble friend Lady Noakes, about whose points I will say more in a moment. I congratulate the two maiden speakers from whom we have heard. I am very much looking forward to my noble friend Lady Lawlor’s maiden speech; I will not detain her much longer. I also congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the eloquence and erudition she showed in introducing the Bill. I declare my interests in the register, particularly those pertaining to fintech advisory work.
I will focus on two areas: financial inclusion and the regulator, mainly because nobody has mentioned the latter yet. Financial inclusion matters not just for those who find themselves on the wrong side of it. If we can drive financial inclusion, there are not just economic but social and national benefits for each and every one of us. That is why I am pleased to see the access to cash clauses in the Bill. It is important because cash still matters; it matters materially to millions. Looking at the reasonableness terms in the Bill, can my noble friend the Minister say what factors will be taken into account when we look at reasonable access to cash? It is a question of both distance—whether that distance is covered by public transport links— and cost. There are many factors to be considered, and I would welcome more detail on that in her wind-up speech.
As many other noble Lords have commented, access to cash is but one part of this. If there is no acceptance of cash, what currency does cash have if there is no place to spend it? In Committee, it is incredibly important that we look at the whole question of acceptance: which businesses are included; what size they are; what line of business they are in; and business clusters. There are so many issues to consider on how we nail the question of cash acceptance, because, without it, access does not go very far at all, as other noble Lords have commented.
The cashback amendment I tabled to the now Financial Services Act 2021, which my noble friend the Minister was kind enough to reference in her opening speech, demonstrates the enduring importance of cash. Evidence so far, since the introduction of cashback without the need for a purchase, clearly demonstrates that most of those transactions are for £20 or below, and therefore clearly serving individuals who were massively underserved or unserved before the passage of that legislative change.
Finally, on cash, does my noble friend the Minister believe it is time to consider cash as critical national infrastructure, and not just for financial inclusion? In the current uncertain world in which we exist, if there were to be a serious and sustained cyberattack on our financial systems, it seems that cash would provide a pretty robust first line of resilience.
Before noble Lords think that I am all about cash, I am interested in cash only while millions still rely on it and while we have not moved fully to the digital world. The future is inexorably digital, not least for payments. There is nothing necessarily problematic or negative about that, but that future has to be inclusive for all—and the transition to that future has to be similarly inclusive. Is it not high time to build on the work of the Access to Cash Review that the Government commissioned with, crucially, a review of access to digital payments?
On the regulator, as others have said, Parliament needs to consider seriously and urgently what we want our regulators in this space to do, without in any sense encroaching on their independence. What do we want them to do? How do we fit them out to do that? How do we put the structure and resource in place to set them up to succeed? How will we then hold them to account on all the principles which have been set out in that structure? It cannot be the case that it takes nine months for an overseas CEO to be able to come over to work in our financial services. It cannot be that it takes over a year for a start-up business to get a licence to operate in this country. It cannot be the case, as my noble friend Lord Ashcombe pointed out in his excellent maiden speech, that one size fits all. In insurance, how can it be that the same regulatory regime applies whether you are insuring a pet or a plane?
We know how to get this right with regulators. We saw that in the first part of the 2010s with our approach to fintech, and with the sandbox and with GFIN, which came as result of that. There was no better measure of success from the sandbox, and no better KPI, than the fact that it has been replicated in well over 50 jurisdictions around the world. That was all under Project Innovate; we need a second, third and fourth version of that project to drive forward all the opportunities which currently exist, combining common law, new technologies, and the potential geographic and historical benefits for London and the rest of the UK. As everybody in financial services knows, history is no guarantee of future success.
On the international competitiveness objective and the international perspective, what have the Government looked at in taking the best from around the world in this area—not least the MAS in Singapore, the Swiss regulator, and those in Bermuda and Australia, to name but a few?
In conclusion, this is the most important financial services Bill in a generation. It has extraordinary potential—but it is potential; it will not inevitably drive economic social good for citizens, cities, communities and our country. This is an extraordinary opportunity to make things better. In Committee and on Report, let us all work to make it even better.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, having been in your Lordships’ House for a little over three years, I am now on my second financial services Bill, and I have to welcome the level of engagement we are seeing today. I was quite new when the last one happened, and it was in the depths of Covid, but the breadth and quality of debate was not an advertisement for the House. There seemed to be a view that financial services regulation could largely be left to the bankers, hedge fund managers and insurance brokers, yet already today we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, how anyone concerned with house prices should be looking to regulate the financial sector to prevent it being an accelerator of prices rather than a funder of secure, affordable homes. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said that anyone who wants the banks actually to serve the real economy of small businesses, to which lending has effectively stopped, should be concerned with financial regulation; and of course, anyone who wants a liveable planet with a healthy natural world should be concerned with financial regulation, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Hayman, among others, have highlighted.
We have a financialised economy, including everything from care homes to health provision, public transport to housing, tax dodging to serving oligarchs and plutocrats. Every Member of your Lordships’ House, whatever they regard as their speciality, whether it is alleviation of poverty or delivery of better health education, should be concerned with this Bill, and every member of the public should be concerned with this Bill. So I am going to agree for a second time with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that the official Opposition would be letting the Government and the financial sector off the hook if our Committee stage was consigned to the murky obscurity of the Moses Room. That is, of course, perhaps unsurprising behaviour, given the Times report that the leaders of our official Opposition are heading off to Davos to send a message to the super-rich that Labour is the party of business.
Noble Lords might expect me to focus on nature and climate, but others, most notably the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, have already covered at length the “dismissive view” that this Bill takes of the very foundation of our economy, that on which every penny of our banks and every pound in a worker’s pocket depends: functioning ecosystems. But I shall take a more systemic and structural view: what is the financial sector for and what is the economy for? The economy should be in the service of a healthy, prosperous and sustainable society. The financial sector should be a tool for that type of economy, and this Bill should redirect our financial sector towards that. Instead, we have a primary objective of competitiveness. More finance is the aim—snatching it from other nations and growing what we have when we already have too much finance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, in her introduction, proudly boasted that 2.3 million people are employed in the financial sector. We really need to change our thinking here. Human resource is a scarce resource and should be used well. A holder of a maths PhD creating the next complex financial instrument to break the global economy is not an example of it being used well. That person could be improving our health, securing our food supply or increasing the sum of human knowledge. Letting the financiers rip, seeking to lead a global race to the bottom on regulation, when lack of regulation is a huge threat to the security of us all, is heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
I could illustrate that point in many ways, but I am going to pick one example—the proposals on position limits in Schedule 2, on page 124 of the Bill. For those in the know, I mention the London Metal Exchange nickel debacle. Some might have read the recent European Economic and Social Committee cry from the heart about much greater regulation of food and commodity trading. As it and many others are identifying, that is a major factor in inflation, hitting every household in the UK and around the world today. A few are profiting while the rest of us pay.
Many commentators—among them I highlight Ann Pettifor, in the Financial Times and elsewhere—are suggesting that commodity derivatives could be the next big systemic risk, because they are so under-regulated. Global commodity markets involve an annual volume of at least $700 billion in buying and selling, with trillions in derivatives piled on to that.
Finally, if we grow the financial sector, we also grow corruption. The City of London is the global centre of corruption. If you do not want to believe me on that, I quote from a debate secured by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said that
“we have clearly, as a matter of policy, turned a blind eye to the perpetrators of corruption overseas using London for business”.—[Official Report, 13/10/2022; col. 156GC.]
If we grow the financial sector, we grow global corruption —that is the reality.
Baroness Lawlor (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour to address this House for the first time. I thank all who have so kindly helped in my introduction—Black Rod and her team, the Clerk of the Parliaments, the Doorkeepers and your Lordships, as well as my two supporters, my noble friends Lord Balfe and Lord Black of Brentwood, and my mentor, my noble friend Lady Eaton.
I am grateful to the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, for nominating me, and pay tribute to his remarkable achievement in opening a new chapter in Britain’s constitutional and political history. One consequence, this Bill to revoke retained EU law and provide for a homegrown alternative, has won the broad support of the Opposition. It was anticipated in 2018 by the then Chancellor, Philip Hammond, now my noble friend Lord Hammond of Runnymede, who explained that the laws for such an important sector of our economy should be made in this country and under the jurisdiction of our courts.
The Bill reflects the continuity of recent political history and therefore links to my own working life, which began as a historian in Cambridge, where I had moved from my native Dublin. I later switched to contemporary policy, initially education, and then founded and established a think tank in London, Politeia, to bring academic and other specialist attention to broad matters of social, economic and constitutional policy, working with different parties and politicians. More recently, we have published material on the financial sector as part of our work on the future legal framework for trade in goods and services. I therefore declare a special interest in this subject and have written on it, although not at great length.
The Bill aims to revoke retained EU law for the sector and replace it with legislation that builds on the UK’s approach. Under it, UK regulators will have certain powers but also obligations to promote competition and medium to long-term growth. It envisages that the regulators will be accountable to Parliament via the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee and will report on their policy, consult, and engage with statutory bodies.
The Bill, therefore, is concerned in a practical way with a more abstract problem: the role played by officials operating the system under the laws made by Parliament. It aims for regulator accountability, something that will be music to the ears of many, often small businesses which are reluctant to act competitively because they fear they may fall foul of the regulator, although observing the law, and do not understand the mysterious application of the rules.
I hope we shall consider how the Bill’s approach to these two central regulator aims, accountability and competition, can be further strengthened, to avoid the erosion of one of the most dynamic sectors the world has ever known. Competition, the rule of good, clear law and a free economy encouraged businesses to start up and flourish in the City of London, a port and commercial centre to which merchants, shipowners, insurance underwriters and other entrepreneurs flocked, establishing banks and businesses. In this country, small entrepreneurs who staked their future on a start-up could enter the market knowing where they stood in law, and that the laws of this country would act as fairly for them as for established businesses. The Bill opens a new era in the story of this dynamic sector. Providing competition and regulator accountability can be achieved, it will help the sector to be a world leader. I welcome this measure and its aims, with one caveat: that Parliament, in giving the regulators greater powers, does not give them a blank cheque.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Lawlor, and to welcome her to the House. I have had the great good fortune to collaborate with her on policy issues over what now amounts to several decades in her role as founder and head of a major think tank with a well-deserved reputation for well-researched and detailed reports—perhaps the hallmark of somebody who started her career as an academic historian. I know that she has wise but spirited and forthright views on many topics, and I have no doubt she will bring that sharp intellect and independent mind to the business of the House. We look forward to her future contributions.
Before I speak on the Bill, I should note my role as a former chairman of Lloyds Bank, but I have no current interests other than as a continuing shareholder. I welcome the Bill, in particular the proposal to add competitiveness to the objectives of regulators, but my fear is that the Bill does not go far enough to redress the overly burdensome nature of the regulatory system that has built up over the last decade. I am not proposing that we turn the clock back to the inadequate regime prior to 2008—many of the reforms introduced then were necessary and are effective—but as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral argued, the excessive regulatory burden on the financial services industry comes not so much from the regulation itself as from the overly bureaucratic way it has been implemented by the UK regulators.
This culture stems from the regulators’ overriding internal objective to avoid the risk of being blamed for failing to do something, with little incentive to balance that against the costs that their intervention may impose on the industry. I fear this tendency to gold-plate is fuelled by the current superficial nature of the parliamentary scrutiny by the Treasury Select Committee in the other place, which tends to focus on naming and shaming someone for anything that has gone wrong. Furthermore, the growth in staff numbers means that much of the regulation of major institutions is undertaken by relatively junior staff who are more likely to stick to a rigid interpretation of the regulatory rules because they simply do not have the confidence or experience to make balanced supervisory judgments.
The senior managers regime, for example, is, in principle, a sensible safeguard to ensure appropriately qualified people are in key industry roles and are held accountable. However, when a major institution has gone through a responsible and exhaustive recruitment process involving an external search firm, it is simply unnecessary and damaging to then have the appointment held up for further lengthy scrutiny by often far less experienced staff at the PRA and FCA. The overly forensic attempt by regulators to pin every mistake on some individual and require consequential penalties has had a corrosive impact, discouraging individuals from making difficult decisions or taking on difficult roles that carry a risk of failure. It has led to a huge increase in bureaucratic processes and documentation, as managers seek to syndicate responsibility and cover their backs.
Another example is the tendency of the regulators to apply a one-size-fits-all approach, unwilling to recognise this may be disproportionate for some sectors or firms. The FCA’s fair pricing review is a case in point: in seeking to address certain consumer pricing practices, the review spread across the whole industry and imposed burdensome data collection on sectors such as the wholesale insurance market, where the participants are skilled professionals. Ring-fencing is another example where the overly rigid application of something which is in principle a sound idea has had a disproportionate impact on banks with relatively small non-ring-fenced activities. The FCA’s worthy objective of protecting the customer has been developed under the customer duty approach to the point where firms fear that even negligent or unreasonable customers will claim redress for buying a financial product that, after the event, causes them a loss. As a result, many products and helpful financial guidance have been withdrawn or repriced out of many people’s reach. This overly protective approach to customers needs to be replaced by a more even-handed objective of simply ensuring fair trading. Caveat emptor has been replaced too much by caveat venditor.
The downside of this overly intrusive regulatory approach is not just the direct costs but, more significantly, the diversion of management time and IT resources away from transforming businesses to better serve their customers. The introduction of competitiveness as a regulatory objective may be helpful to provide a counterbalance. I also welcome the provisions in this Bill for the Treasury to require regulators to review their activities and to set up independent cost-benefit panels, but these measures will not solve the problem without a fundamental shift in attitude, skills and culture within the regulators. I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment in Edinburgh to bring forward further measures to address some of these issues, including reviews of ring-fencing, the senior managers regime and the boundary between advice and financial guidance, but even then, I am not sure we will transform the regulatory approach without a more fundamental reshaping of the organisations and their accountability.
I think it is worth considering whether smaller regulators with fewer and more experienced staff would do a better job of providing supervision, with more considered judgments, and whether the benefit of having two separate regulators outweighs the burden of having two overlapping supervisory teams for major institutions. Finally, while I support the Bill, as other noble Lords have argued, given the powers it transfers to regulators it is important that it is accompanied by a more informed and balanced structure of parliamentary scrutiny that can also hold regulators to account for their new objective of the competitiveness of the industry. I ask my noble friend whether the Leader of the House has any plans to bring such proposals before the House.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register and I begin by welcoming my noble friend Lady Lawlor. I was one of her sponsors. I am delighted to see her here; she will add huge intellectual firepower to our Benches. I hope not too much of it will be turned on me, as I do not think we agree very much on the European Union. I also thank my noble friends Lord Remnant and Lord Ashcombe, who will also add considerably to these Benches.
This is an interesting Bill. It is a good basis for a debate, and it follows a good deal of consultation. I am afraid that I disagree with my noble friend Lord Holmes, who is not in his place, on the subject of cash. Things move ahead. In 2020, I went to our local Turkish shop just after Covid started. I offered the shopkeeper some money and he said, “We’ve stopped accepting money, sir. We might get Covid.” I thought, “This is interesting.” Believe it or not, I stopped using money. Of course, the difficulty for poorer people is that they do not have access to credit or debit cards that they can just hand over all the time, so we need to retain the ability to pay in cash. But shops will maintain that for us, because they will want to continue to sell their goods, which is a pretty good thing.
As I see it, the growth of cryptocurrency, which I regret, is the next big scandal on the horizon—I thank the most reverend Primate for giving me a drink of water; it is jolly good to be given one by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I warn us against cryptocurrency. We need to look at regulating it, because it is totally out of control, and it is meaningless. I discovered the principles of Warren Buffett before they were popular; if you want an investment, you should be able to see it, understand it and answer the question, “Does it do anything useful?” If you cannot get positive answers to all those points, you are likely to be investing in a dud. All these bubbles over the last umpteen years have been about things that do not exist. They did not have any benefits and most of them did not pay any dividends. You need to be very careful. I predict that anyone investing in cryptocurrency will come to regret it pretty shortly.
I welcome Clause 69 of this Bill, in particular the ability to develop credit unions further. We often forget the role that they play, particularly in providing secure finance for poorer people and in the trade union and working people’s movement. Anything we can do to strengthen credit union regulation, while making them dependable, is something to be gained. Enabling them to extend cautiously into hire-purchase agreements and insurance, and to lend to and borrow from each other, is extremely good. I hope that, as we pass this Bill, we can look carefully at how to support credit unions.
Finally, we need to look at the dangerous “buy now, pay later” phenomenon. Problems are already beginning to arise with the idea that you can go into a shop and say, “I’ll pay in three months.” This sector needs bringing under some sort of financial regulation. I hope that we can get some sort of outline during the course of this Bill of how we can get a regulatory framework.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, it has been a great pleasure to hear the three maiden speeches this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Remnant, was a fellow alderman in the City of London; I remember we all thought that he was first-rate material to be lord mayor, but unfortunately the City assumed him and took him away from us. We have seen tonight just how valuable his contribution will be. I equally congratulate his colleagues. Our House has been enriched this evening.
This is an important Bill, which I welcome and support. There is much that is valuable in it, such as enshrining that regulators exercise their new powers in the service of public policy objectives, set by Parliament, which maximise the industry’s contribution to society. I warmly welcome moves to build a robust regulatory regime for digital assets and to support digital innovation in distribution ledger technology, employing the sandbox technology that has been so successful in fintech. The introduction of references to economic growth and competitiveness has long been on the industry wish list.
Bringing the marketing of crypto assets under the existing financial promotion rules is highly desirable, as are the introduction of a new regulatory principle for the FCA and the PRA to have regard to the need to contribute towards achieving the UK’s net-zero obligations and steps to ensure that domestic legislation is amended to ensure that mutual recognition agreements can be fully implemented. This should reduce the cost of doing business and facilitate more competitive client service and offerings.
Some noble Lords have regretted that the Bill is not more proscriptive and wider ranging. However, the UK’s regulatory regime is a key factor in its perceived attraction as a global financial centre. With respect, profound changes are unappreciated and unhelpful. As we saw as recently as last autumn, it is important to be perceived as predictable, stable and strategic. Profound changes are to be avoided.
I am not an expert in regulation and have not worked in banking, insurance or, for example, the LSE. I was elected 11 years ago in the City and worked there for 45 years. From my contacts there, I think there is contentment with the Bill and its contents. These are steps in the right direction. It is a very important sector; as I and others have said, from research, it is critical that financial services flourish in this country.
I too would have liked to see more action on fraud and regulatory accountability, and opportunities for consumers have been missed. Hopefully, the Government can address this. The principal concern is the speed at which reform is proceeding. We have suffered the negative impacts of leaving the EU but are not succeeding in enhancing and improving our offer fast enough to compensate. Can the Minister say in summing up whether the regulatory organisations, with their immensely demanding and complex responsibilities, are fully equipped with the staff and resources required for the discharge of their duties and functions? This is more critical than ever at this time, as underlined most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, a few hours ago, before this debate started, one of my noble friends saw that I was down to speak and said something in terms similar to, “What on earth do you know about this?” He hit the nail on the head. That feeling has been only heightened by the quality of the speeches we have heard from noble Lords who really know what they are talking about, not least the three maiden speeches. I am delighted to have such erudite noble friends joining us on these Benches—I will probably have to keep quiet now, unless it is a subject that I know a little more about.
I say that I do not know much about this but, listening to some of the speeches, I realised that—as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who is not in her place at the moment, said—I represent the man or woman in the street who does not understand these things but needs to because they are really important. As a former retailer, I have something to say on the subject of cash. Also, I say to my noble friend Lady Noakes, who is not here, and others that, if there is any spare cash she does not want, I have various charities—I will put a bucket outside and we can take it. That would solve that problem.
I declare an interest as a director of Peers for the Planet. I was going to emphasise the point about net zero and so on, but that has been amply discussed and there is no point in overdoing things. The noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Hayman, and others have mentioned this, so I will just add my voice to that. I can almost hear one or two of my noble friends in particular thinking that this will somehow be a burden, but it will not: these very institutions and businesses are asking for it to make sure that there is a level playing field.
However, there is one amendment I hope to table in Committee—unless I can persuade my noble friend the Minister that the Government need to take this on, which would save me the job of having to make a further speech on the Bill—and it is on deforestation. This amendment would echo one tabled by my right honourable friend Chris Grayling on Report in the other place, which had a great deal of cross-party support. My amendment would introduce a mandatory due diligence obligation for UK financial services to prevent the financing of commodities, businesses and activities that destroy climate-critical and biodiversity-rich forests, and indeed the lives of the local communities and indigenous peoples who depend on them. I tabled a similar amendment to the Environment Bill as it went through this House. It was a rather good amendment but, to my astonishment, the Government did not seem to agree with me entirely on it. I did cry myself to sleep that night, but I woke up again and thought, “There will be another opportunity”—and that is what I hope we will have in Committee, where I am sure the Government will realise the error of their ways and accept this, because it is incredibly important. I do not believe that Schedule 17 of the Environment Act is enough to stop the UK’s role in global deforestation.
I fully support the Bill but, like so many others have said, I am sure that there is room for improvement. It may not be down to me to do it; I think I have found the experts we need. I salute the Government for bringing this forward, and I salute my noble friend the Minister—not just because I want her to accept my amendment but because her stamina in sitting through this debate has been fantastic. With that, I think I will sit down.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Randall, but I am not planning to follow him into the woods and forests and deforestation. I find myself in a situation which many noble Lords in this Chamber will have been in at various times of their career, where you have prepared a speech which is, frankly, brilliant, and you have all the points laid out with wonderful clarity, only to find that the second speaker makes your points, and the fourth speaker makes your points—I lost count after that. Everybody has talked about regulation, which is what I was planning to talk about. So, noble Lords will be extremely relieved to hear that my speech is going to be quite short, because nearly everything that can be said about regulation has been said—but, I have to say, not quite everything.
I do not have any interests to declare; I used to have interests to declare in financial services. I used to be a regulated authorised person by the PRA and the FCA, and I used to be the chairman of a very small bank, so I have had some experience of being regulated and recognise the importance of regulation. I recognise the very important role that the regulators play in keeping London as a premier financial centre. One of the principal reasons we are still a major financial centre in the world and manage to fight off the competition, which now comes from Europe as well as from New York and Singapore—China may well become competition again, but Hong Kong has largely disappeared —is our honesty and probity through regulation. That is very important, and we need to preserve it. For that reason, I also very much support the part of the Bill which gives the regulator further duties, particularly the duty in relation to international competition and growth, and to the green agenda. All this is very important, but it raises quite serious issues about what we want the regulator to do.
Perhaps I could digress for a moment and say a little bit about what I think regulators ought to be doing. This follows on a bit from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who sadly is not in his place at the moment, said earlier about large and detailed rulebooks being a disincentive to effective regulation. In fact, I would say—only he is a lawyer—that the great danger is getting the lawyers involved in regulation at all.
The point about regulation is that it is there to stop the villains and to stop people doing things that they should not do, but it is trying to do that in markets that are extremely fast-moving and highly inventive and innovative. A regulator that has rules that were set in stone 20 years ago and stretch from here to eternity will never catch those people. Indeed, there is a very strong argument, which I have seen written up by people who know much more about it than I do, that the great crash of 2007-08 was caused largely by regulators being hidebound by what they had seen in the past, rather than understanding what was happening and developing for the future—not just in this country, I have to say, but principally in the United States as well.
Regulators have to be very close to their markets and understand what is going on in them. They have to see the trades being done, know the participants and hear the gossip. In all markets, whether traded or over-the-counter, the participants know who is good, who is stupid and who is bad. They may not get it 100% right but they get it pretty nearly right, which means that we have to get the regulation of the regulators right. That is desperately important.
I do not believe the Treasury can do it, because it is too close to the regulators. The Bank of England clearly is a regulator and cannot do it. The Treasury Select Committee, of which I have some experience, having been a chairman many years ago, cannot do it. We have to find a way of doing it which is effective. It may involve parliamentary committees, but my guess is that it will involve another regulator, to regulate the regulator. We need little fleas on the backs of big fleas to bite them. I am afraid that that is what we will have to do. We need to find a solution, because the regulators are becoming too powerful and too important, and they need to change.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I was worried that my noble friend Lord Carrington of Fulham would take away the very last thing I might have said that has not already been said, but happily he has left a little scope for my contribution to the debate. I will start by saying something which has been widely said, by offering congratulations to all my noble friends who made their maiden speeches today and saying how welcome their contributions were, as their many contributions in future will be, adding to the quality of debate and the experience of your Lordships’ House.
There have been many points of consensus around the whole of the House as we have debated this, and I share those points. Among them is the astonishing lack of parliamentary scrutiny of what is in fact lawmaking. Whether this constitutes taking back control and whether it could be done better need to be explored in Committee. A second point of consensus is the need to ensure that a cash option remains available, not just for those who need it but for those who want to exercise it. There is broad consensus on that around the House. A third point on which there is consensus—I do not intend to put this too controversially—is that there appears to be a shared mild uncertainty around whether the current regulators are up to managing the new jobs that are about to be thrust upon them. That is something else that I am sure we will want to explore in Committee.
I would like to add one item, which I hope will command widespread support in your Lordships’ House. Over the last 20 or 30 years, retail access to regulated investments has practically dried up. It used to be the case that one could buy government bonds, gilt-edged securities, at the Post Office. It used to be the case that one could bid, non-competitively, for new issues of gilts through clipping a coupon in a newspaper—even the Daily Mail—and put one’s money into government bonds, as a safe, secure investment that one could hold over the long term. It used to be the case that new issues of equities were widely available to retail investors. All these had different risk profiles, but we need to trust that retail investors understand to a degree what they are doing—and they do.
Over the last few years, investors with money in their pockets which they would like to put into savings have been precluded by regulation from these markets and have instead put their money into dodgy schemes and things calling themselves bonds that have been marketed in a way that sometimes gives the impression that they are regulated by financial regulators. Sometimes there has been sufficient justification for that claim, such that we had to pass legislation only last year to authorise the Treasury to bail out the investors in one of the schemes—I believe it was called London Capital & Finance, but I may have that slightly wrong. We are saying that investors are going to be regulated out of nice, secure, sensible investments, but in effect encouraged to go into dodgy investments. It is all completely wrong.
A large part of it comes from the European Union’s prospectus directive. One thing it said was that, for investment in corporate bonds, the minimum denomination for a new bond issue has to be €100,000, and that denomination stays with the bond for the whole of its life. So unless you have a sum of roughly €100,000, you cannot buy. Most retail investors do not have that. The prospectus directive is included in Schedule 1 and is listed to go. It is vital that we put the retail investor at the heart of this.
Furthermore, treasurers are discouraged from giving a retail offer in new issues of equities because they have additional regulatory requirements to meet. We should be able to address those. All those things could be done if they were an explicit objective of the Bill and if the Government committed to doing them. The Investor Access to Regulated Bonds Working Group in the City has been talking to the FCA about this. The working group represents the industry; I have had some briefing from it, but have no interest to declare. There is a definite opportunity, but it needs to be taken up and pressed by the Government.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean mentioned the outrageous way in which politically exposed persons are dealt with in this country in the domestic regime. I put it to my noble friend on the Front Bench that this Bill, dealing as it does with financial regulation, would be the perfect mechanism for sorting out that problem once and for all, through any necessary amendments to primary or secondary legislation required, so that we cease to have the humiliating prospect of watching the Front Bench go off and beg the Financial Conduct Authority to treat us reasonably.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the three new Peers and their thought-provoking contributions so far to this crucial Bill. I want to focus on one fairly narrow but I think important consequence of an increasingly cashless society: that is, that a handful of mainly US tech giants now have unprecedented power over the public square.
Consider how any civil society organisation has to operate today. Consumer campaigns, pressure groups, NGOs, the third sector—all will be dependent on payment processes such as US fintech PayPal to operate in order to organise online payments for goods, services, events, and to receive membership fees and donations, et cetera. Can your Lordships imagine if these digital corporates took it upon themselves to freeze assets and suspend accounts with no notice or explanation, all because some big-tech apparatchik disapproved of the aims of such organisations? Surely such censorious demonetisation would be a threat to democracy. Yet this is not some dystopian future—it is happening now. So I urge the Government to use the Bill to protect civil society organisations’ ability to conduct basic commerce regardless of their political views.
Noble Lords will remember the media coverage of events in September last year when PayPal deplatformed a number of UK organisations. Suddenly the Free Speech Union—I declare an interest as a member of the advisory board—the Daily Sceptic, Law or Fiction, and UsforThem, an advocacy group set up by mums who opposed school closures during lockdown, had no way to process membership or access their own funds, had no ability to raise money and were made to feel like criminals. All their processing services were just switched off abruptly, risking their whole financial viability. Toby Young, who heads up two of the targeted organisations, explained at the time:
“PayPal’s software was embedded in all our payment systems, so the sudden closure of our accounts was an existential threat.”
Indeed, even PayPal’s co-founder Peter Thiel told the Free Press in December:
“If the online forms of your money are frozen, that’s like destroying people economically, limiting their ability to exercise their political voice.”
Such financial censorship reminded me of when the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze the Freedom Convoy protesters’ bank accounts last February. That was shocking, but at least it was clearly a political act. The problem when payment process organisations defund based on content is that they are often evasive and opaque about who it is targeted and why. PayPal gave contradictory and vague explanations last September, initially citing its acceptable use policy associated with criminality and hate speech, and later telling the Times that the accounts were guilty of misinformation about vaccines. Few were convinced. Miriam Cates MP told the other place:
“It is … hard to avoid interpreting PayPal’s actions as an orchestrated, politically motivated move to restrict certain views within the UK”,—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/22; col. 430.]
or, in the FSU’s case, even defending those expressing such legal but dissenting views.
After high-profile press coverage and Members from both Houses—across parties and of none—causing a fuss, PayPal eventually backed down, reinstated the accounts and denied that there was any political interference. However, there is no room for complacency. When Sally-Ann Hart MP proposed an amendment to this very Bill in the other place, seeking to legally prevent financial service providers refusing to provide services if related to the exercise of the right to free speech, the Minister Andrew Griffin gave a robustly positive response. He stated that the Government respected
“the balance of rights between users and service providers’ obligations … whether of the Free Speech Union, the trade union movement, law-abiding environmental movements or anyone else expressing lawful views.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/22; col. 395.]
However, he seemed rather reluctant to agree with the need for primary legislative change and stated that the PayPal incidents did not represent a wider pattern. I beg to disagree.
We need to look at what has happened in the US over recent years—and think about whether it might happen here—where big tech companies regularly use defunding to regulate speech, so much so that in June 2021, a large coalition of US civil liberties groups wrote to PayPal and its subsidiary Venmo asking for transparency, due process and clarity behind this escalating practice of economic limitations on multiple varied accounts, from WikiLeaks to News Media Canada’s payment to submit an article about Syrian refugees for an award. The coalition, comprising eminent organisations such as Article 19, the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, never even got a reply from PayPal. Also, less high-profile instances of deplatforming dissenting views are happening in the UK, for example with Patreon, CrowdJustice and GoFundMe affecting our citizens. What is more, the majority of major payment providers grant themselves the right to block accounts of those whose views clash with Silicon Valley’s increasingly ideological corporate values.
I intend to table an amendment to say that, while I understand that private companies have a right to choose who they do business with and should be vigilant about fraud and illegal transactions, they should never discriminate on the basis of an organisation’s political, philosophical or religious beliefs. This Bill might be a place where we can put that right.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a consultant to an FCA-regulated investment management firm. Overall, I strongly welcome this Bill, as do important UK financial institutions, including the Investment Association, UK Finance, TheCityUK and Linklaters’ Financial Regulation Group, to name but four.
Politically, the Bill seems to be generally supported by all major parties. I particularly welcome the provision to establish a regime to regulate stablecoins. I also like the idea of bringing in measures to allow regulators to reduce regulations in order to enable technological innovation in a sandbox. I also approve of the measure allowing regulators to make rules for entities deemed to pose systemic risks to the UK’s financial markets. As the Prime Minister said in his Back-Bench speech at Second Reading:
“Why does all this matter? It matters for three specific reasons. The first is jobs. The industry provides more than 1 million jobs, and not just in London and the south-east; two-thirds of those jobs are in places such as Southampton, Chester, Bournemouth, Glasgow, Belfast, Edinburgh and Leeds. It is incredibly important. Secondly, it is one of the most important industries for our economy in terms of contribution to our GDP and tax revenues, and it is something that we as a country are genuinely world-class at.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/22; col. 292.]
I recognise that the City is now in a very different place from where it was in 2016. The consensus view is that the ship has now sailed on regulatory equivalence with Europe. However, the fact is that, since 2018, the volume of financial exports to the EU has fallen by 19% in cash terms. Some £1.3 trillion of UK assets have reportedly moved to the EU and there has been little progress on securing trade deals for our financial services around the world—although Switzerland was mentioned earlier.
Still, in 2021, exports of financial services to the EU were worth £20.1 billion—33% of all UK financial services exports. So is it wise just to repeal all the 200-plus pieces of retained EU law en bloc rather than identifying which are helpful and necessary? Also, the sector is disappointed that the Government have so far failed to finalise a memorandum of understanding on regulatory co-operation or negotiate with the EU for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications for our service sectors. In her winding-up speech, will the Minister tell us what impact she believes this Bill will have in securing these important agreements with the EU and boosting financial services exports more generally?
I move on to what has not been included in the Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Balfe: I feel that the Bill lacks ambition in its lack of support for the mutual and co-operative sector. Although Clause 63 contains some welcome and long-overdue provisions, such as enabling credit unions to offer a wider range of products, the Bill does little to address the outdated regulatory regime faced by credit unions, building societies and co-operative banks. We have seen numerous building societies threatened with demutualisation in recent years, while the number of mutual credit unions has plummeted by more than 20% since 2016. Unlike the USA—and many other European countries, as I understand it—the UK is uniquely lacking in co-operatively or mutually owned regional banks. That lack of diversity in the financial services sector has had bad consequences for financial inclusion and resilience, with many desperate families forced into the arms of unethical lenders.
Next, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and other noble Lords, I find it disappointing that the Bill fails fully to address the growing problem of financial fraud. Clause 62 only partially addresses the issue. It enhances protections for victims of authorised push payment fraud, which, according to the Labour Treasury Minister in the other place, quoting UK Finance figures, reached an all-time high of £1.3 billion in 2020. The Government in the other place promised a review without giving a timescale, but more immediate action is needed. The Bill ignores the fact that digital-savvy criminals are increasingly exploiting a range of financial institutions such as payment system operators, electronic money institutions and crypto asset firms to scam the public. According to UK Finance, in 2020, 45% of the £1.3 billion was payment card fraud, while 38% was authorised push payment and 16% was remote banking.
Last November, our House of Lords Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee released a report stating that the Government should introduce a new corporate criminal offence to ensure that big tech platforms and telecom companies tackle financial crime. While online platforms will face a duty of care to protect their users from fraud under the Online Safety Bill currently going through its stages in the other place, it does not cover telecoms and other related sectors:
“‘It’s a very good step but I do think that more needs to be done,’ said Sian McIntyre, a managing director at Barclays UK, including requiring tech companies to publish data on the nature and volume of scams on their platforms.”
I support other noble Lords’ views on the limitation of Treasury Select Committee scrutiny, general clarity on crypto regulation, regulators’ requirements to focus on international competitors, problems of buy now, pay later, and the opportunity to still have a cash option. In summary, I welcome the Bill and look forward to scrutinising it further in Committee.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Northbrook. I thank my noble friend Lady Penn for her impressive introduction of this Bill and declare my interest as set out in the register as a director of two investment companies. I welcome the Bill. I wish to place on record my strong objection to the imposition of a five-minute so-called advisory speaking time at Second Reading. I add my congratulations to my noble friends Lord Remnant, Lord Ashcombe and Lady Lawlor on their excellent maiden speeches.
I was a member of the Joint Committee on Financial Services and Markets, which reported in 1999 on the need for the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. At the time, we did not appreciate how much of the responsibility for framing financial services regulation would be transferred to the European Commission, as Union competence steadily increased its reach. We were powerless to prevent the entry into force of AIFMD in 2013. We did not resist the adoption and eventual entry into force in 2018 of MiFID II, which requires fund managers and brokers to set separate charges for trade execution and research, and fund managers to pay for research themselves or agree a separate research contract under which they may recover their costs. These and other legacy EU regulations, such as PRIIPs and its requirement that companies produce consumer-friendly kids, have had the opposite effect on consumers from that which was expected.
A return to the FSMA 2000 model, balancing responsibilities between Parliament, government acting through the Treasury and the regulators, makes a great deal of sense. I was never sure that the decision following the financial crisis of 2008 to create the PRA as a second regulator, which was neither an independent regulator nor fully a department of the Bank of England, was the right one. The creation of the FCA, with its one strategic objective, that markets function well, and three operational objectives, which include a competition objective but one limited to promoting competition in the interest of consumers, has contributed to the emergence of a culture within the institution which is overcautious and generally perceived by the industry as anti-innovation. Participants in London’s insurance markets have explained to me that this is the principal reason why our share of the global insurance markets is stagnant at around 7%, whereas those of other jurisdictions such as Bermuda and Singapore are growing.
From the point of view of your Lordships’ House, Clause 36 of the Bill, governing engagement with parliamentary committees, is very unsatisfactory. It is very far from even-handed between your Lordships’ House and another place. I question whether the Treasury Committee, as it currently operates, can conduct the required level of oversight. Surely a Joint Committee of both Houses should be established for this purpose. We need a committee resourced well enough to replicate the activities of the ECON committee of the European Parliament.
I welcome the Government’s decision to act in accordance with a recommendation of the Listing Review, undertaken by my noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford, to create a competitiveness and growth objective. Clause 24(2) makes clear that this objective is secondary. However, as I mentioned, the FCA has one strategic objective and three operational objectives. Could my noble friend the Minister please inform the House whether the new competitiveness and growth objective is to be a secondary strategic objective or a secondary operational objective? Could she explain why the Government does not recognise that, if the FCA’s new objective is only secondary, it will not be effective in changing the FCA’s culture and behaviour to the extent necessary to achieve the Government’s ambition for the UK to be the world’s most innovative and competitive global financial centre?
The regulators are required to report on how well they are performing their new objectives, but Clause 26 suggests that the FCA sets its own homework and then marks it. Unlike the PRA, it is not required to undertake public consultation. Could my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether she thinks that the empowerment of the FCA to regulate Stock Exchange listings through the designated activities regime will make admissions more, or less, expensive and cumbersome than they have become over the past 14 years—during which, as my noble friend Lord Hill pointed out, the number of companies listed on the London Stock Exchange has declined by 40%?
I welcome the Bill and look forward to working with other noble Lords to make it a better one.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Lawson. As his researcher in my spare time before I entered Parliament, then his PPS for four years, then his Economic Secretary to the Treasury for two more, I learned my politics at his feet. I also learned to admire his immense intellect, his sound judgment, and—what may be less well known to others—his incredible, uncanny insight into human psychology, enabling him to forecast in advance the reactions of individuals and the public to events long before they occurred. When I saw him in the summer, his intellect, judgment and insight were undimmed. They will be sorely missed in this House.
I want to make five simple points. First, the four major global financial centres, London, New York, Hong Kong and Singapore, are all based on common law, as are the three newest players, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Astana. By contrast, the largest European financial centre, based on civil law code, is Frankfurt, which clocks in at number 18 as the most significant globally. That is not a coincidence; it is because common law is uniquely suited to financial markets. In recent decades, layers of civil law code have been added to Britain’s financial system, so the objective of this Bill, to return rule-making to a more common-law-based approach, is very welcome.
Secondly, it is not clear whether the Bill will achieve that objective. Historically, the common-law approach involves laws and regulations made by Parliament and explicated by the courts by the accumulation of precedents. The Bill at present will effectively hand over rule-making to independent regulators, with minimal accountability to Parliament or involvement of the courts.
Thirdly, the economic analysis of regulation is a comparatively new discipline, but its seminal conclusion is clear: we cannot rely on the beneficence of regulators. Left to their own devices—and I stress this—regulators regulate in the interests of regulators, without accountability. That is why, in practice, they mind their own backs by taking a bureaucratic, box-ticking approach to every decision, rather than focusing their resources on areas of genuine concern. As a result, bona fide businesses face pointless delays to obtain the least contentious decisions; regulators refuse to offer advice on how they will apply specific rules in specific cases, leaving businesses to face uncertainty and risk; and regulators refuse to publish reasons for their decisions, with the result that there is no coherent body of case law for firms to follow. Finally, regulators tend remorselessly to extend their remit, increasing their own importance.
I understand that amendments are likely to be proposed to make regulators more accountable to Parliament, or at least to a powerful Joint Committee of both Houses. Having chaired the Joint Committee scrutinising legislation following the great financial crisis, I can vouch for how much value the Members of this House give to such committees, as well as those of the other House, to which I then belonged. It is also important that there are amendments to require regulators to apply common law disciplines and to enable tribunals to ensure that a body of publicly available case law develops to give practitioners greater legal certainty. I am predisposed to support such amendments, as I hope will the Government.
Fourthly, I understand that the regulators have been arguing that their independence is sacrosanct. To quote Mandy Rice-Davies, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?” Of course politicians should not meddle in how regulators apply rules to specific practitioners, but the Bank of England was given independence to set interest rates for a very specific reason: because the timing of interest rate changes is electorally sensitive. There is no equivalent reason to allow the financial regulators to be immune to influence and oversight from Parliament or the courts.
Fifthly, finally and rather differently, there is no reason to extend the regulators’ competence to include climate change. The sensible path to net zero, which we have adopted in this country, is to reduce demand for fossil fuels, not to reduce their supply. If businesses overinvest in producing fossil fuels ahead of declining demand, they will lose money. That is their problem, not the regulators’. If the UK unilaterally bans investment in fossil fuels, which would be a bizarre thing to do given that we do not ban their import, other people will supply them, both here and abroad. If the world collectively restricts the supply of fossil fuels faster than we phase out demand, there will be shortages, prices will shoot up and fossil-fuel producers will make enormous profits; we will have done to ourselves what Putin has just done to the world. Giving regulators a climate objective would be either pointless or disastrous. In all other respects, I support the Bill.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I begin the first of the winding-up speeches by saying how much I welcome our three maiden speakers and by remarking on the excellence of their speeches. I look forward to their further contributions.
This a significant Bill. There are aspects of it that I strongly support. I do believe that we should tailor regulation to the UK market, although I am of the community that thinks this refers much more to the efficiency of the way that rules are applied than to the removal of gold-plating. I hope that I do not misspeak for the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, when I say that the absence of profound change would be rather welcomed by most of those I talk to in the financial services industry. I support protection for access to cash, protection against push payment scams, greater scope for credit unions and beginning attempts to regulate crypto assets. In some of these areas, we on these Benches will have amendments to strengthen those changes.
There are missed opportunities. My noble friend Lord Sharkey is leading for us to introduce an effective duty of care, unlike the box-ticking of the consumer duty, and to adjust the regulatory perimeter to properly include small businesses. My noble friend Lady Tyler will lead for us on an objective of financial inclusion, as well as dealing with issues around access to cash and to services. My noble friends Lady Northover and Lady Sheehan are leading on strengthening the net-zero and biodiversity elements of the regulators’ roles. And I think the House is now prepared to understand that my noble friend Lady Bowles is proposing changes to make the regime far more effective at enforcement, including against fraud; to drive regulatory efficiency; and to significantly improve monitoring of systemic risk and financial stability across the financial sector. I suspect that yet more amendments will be coming from her pen.
All of us on these Benches are concerned with accountability. I was going to list everyone who spoke on this issue, but I would have to read out virtually every name engaged in the debate. From my perspective, powers that had democratic oversight in the EU system will be transferred wholesale to regulators with pretty much no engagement with a meaningful democratic process once this Bill is passed. As many have said, the Treasury Select Committee has taken steps to improve its oversight, but it is far too little and I agree with those who say that it is retrospective, which is not what we need. I look to my noble friend Lady Bowles in particular to craft a series of amendments.
In this Second Reading, I want to take a step back and ask to what extent the changes introduced in this Bill, combined with what the Chancellor calls “the Edinburgh reforms”, which are, of course, largely coming through secondary legislation, reintroduce risks to the sector and to financial stability that existed prior to the 2007 crash and set us up for the next major crisis. The financial crash was driven by the deliberate disguise of risky assets and irresponsible management by major banks. Consumers endured abuse from extensive mis-selling and, astonishingly, Libor was corruptly manipulated for at least a decade.
Today, we have a shadow banking system—I have to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Butler; I am afraid this glass of water will not turn into wine, as happened for the noble Lord, Lord Balfe—which now almost matches the formal banking system in size and has embedded new levels of risk. I think LDI, is an example and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, that it was the leveraging of those instruments using a loophole that caused the problem. Give them an inch and they take 10 miles, and it continues to be true of the sector.
I accept that some change to Solvency II makes sense, but many insurers see its replacement by solvency UK, which will be empowered by this Bill, as the gateway to extensive investment in high-risk illiquid assets, sub-investment grade—I have talked to the industry—without compensating capital requirements. I am very concerned at the weakening of the matching adjustment. I think the Government are mesmerised by the hope that these investments will fund upscaling of new companies, net-zero projects and high-risk infrastructure with somehow no real risk involved. I suspect a lot will go to remuneration and dividends, frankly. I am constantly referred to the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board as evidence that a fund can safely invest in high-risk illiquid assets without being burned. I quote from the S&P Global Ratings Review of the CPP:
“The rating also reflects the agency’s opinion of a moderately high likelihood that the Canadian government would provide extraordinary support in the event of financial distress.”
I wonder how much the UK taxpayer wishes to stand behind our insurance industry—and in many senses it also involves the pension industry—with a moderately high likelihood of extraordinary support in the event of financial distress? Taxpayers cannot keep bailing out the financial sector.
The financial services sector, especially the City, is also aggressively behind the international competitiveness objective in this Bill. Many want it elevated to a primary objective. This was discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, in his maiden speech. Actually, I may do injustice to the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, on that. He may have said that he is happy with it as a secondary objective. They believe that the regulators—again, I talk with the industry extensively—will find that this objective combined with the mutual recognition agreements in trade negotiations, which, of course, do not come to Parliament for approval, will force UK regulation to be lowered to match that of trade partners, and I suggest that that is very dangerous.
I quote from Paul Tucker, former deputy governor of the Bank of England, in evidence in November to the Economic Affairs Committee:
“please do not, as the UK Parliament, give the Prudential Regulation Authority a competitiveness objective. Someone would only do that if they really disliked the City of London and wanted to damage the City of London in the long run ... I can summon the ghosts of Eddie George and George Blunden in assuring you that the City does not always know its best interests over the medium to long run.”
We are of course bleeding financial services business to the EU and other global financial centres. Financial services exports to the EU are down more than 6%, and it will get seriously worse when euro clearing leaves in 2025, but regulatory arbitrage is not the answer. I am with those who are convinced that a strong rulebook is essential to the reputation and success of the financial services industry as well as the necessary bulwark against a repeat crisis which would create years of damage to the UK economy and bring many further years of austerity.
But the Chancellor has gone farther. The Edinburgh reforms set up processes to weaken the ring-fencing of core retail banking from investment and international banking. I urge the House to stop this in its tracks. Like the most reverend Primate, I sat on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards for nearly two years. Few things fuelled irresponsible behaviour more than the banks’ ability to use what they saw as the free and insured money sitting in personal bank accounts to roll on high-risk casino banking. Add to that the lifting of the cap on bankers’ bonuses and we set up actual incentives for another risk and greed-fuelled crisis.
The Edinburgh reforms also set up a process to change the senior managers and certification regime. My dispute with the SMCR is that the FCA has made it into a box-ticking exercise that does not fulfil its primary purpose to act severely against individual senior managers who fail in their duties, either deliberately or through mismanagement and incompetence. My noble friend Lord Sharkey discussed this. Instead of returning that regime to its original purpose, the industry is very confident that the Edinburgh reforms will remove individual responsibility completely. I suggest that Members of the House visit the evidence given to the commission. Virtually every senior manager, including the CEOs, pleaded a mix of incompetence and collective responsibility to explain away the failures in their institution and why they could not be held to account.
This is a Bill we have to get right. Risk applies asymmetrically in the financial services industry. In the 2007-08 crash, almost no senior manager or executive was hurt and, indeed, almost every one of them walked away with years of bonuses based on what were really false profits. The taxpayer and ordinary people, coping with the austerity that followed—never mind the funds that had to go into the banking system—bore the real cost. On the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, we were very afraid that after a few years the lessons of the crash and the abuse would be forgotten and the new safeguards watered down. This is an industry that knows how to promote itself and speaks with a great sense of invincibility. As we work our way through the Bill, we should keep at the front of our minds the concern that those safeguards, which were so necessary, will be pushed to be watered down.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and for the positive engagement we have had with government. Today has been a constructive and considered debate, and I congratulate the three maiden speakers.
In the other place, Labour gave broad support to the Bill. Some regulatory divergence with the EU, and a more outcomes-based approach to regulation, will create some important opportunities for industry. For example, long-awaited reforms to Solvency II, if done well, will unlock capital for investment in productive assets, including those that will be needed for the green transition.
However, my party’s support had one glaring exception: the intervention power. The Government mooted this and then wisely abandoned it following widespread condemnation. This was not just the Opposition opposing it, as noble Lords might expect. The Treasury Committee, the Bank of England, the FCA and every serious City stakeholder and commentator expressed profound concern about the risk of any interference with the independence of our regulators. The foundation of the City of London’s success as a financial centre is precisely its robust regulation, shielded from the political caprices of Governments of all stripes.
Our world-class financial services sector needs its reputation as a safe and stable place to do business. The Prime Minister and his Treasury threatened that when they flew their amateurish intervention power kite, gambling with over 1 million UK jobs. Now that this threat has been removed, I am happily able to support what has made it into the Bill, with a number of important changes.
As has been outlined, the Bill implements the outcomes of the future regulatory framework review and attempts to set out a clear direction of travel for financial services regulation now that we have left the EU.
I welcome Chapters 1 and 2, which will allow us to both revoke remaining retained EU law and strengthen the regulators’ powers and oversight of important areas, such as central counterparties and financial promotions, now that we have left the EU. I look forward to scrutinising these measures in detail in Committee.
Clauses 21 and 22 allow for the regulation of stablecoins. Crypto is no longer a niche investment but is widely popular with retail investors. Many currencies are big enough that their collapse can cause systemic shocks in the “real economy”. Can the Minister give an update on the Government’s current strategic approach to crypto, in light of the FTX collapse? Clause 24 establishes new regulatory objectives of medium-term growth and competitiveness, which will help to tackle our chronically stagnant economy.
I believe that these measures have successfully struck a difficult balance between protecting financial stability and unlocking the potential of the sector to boost the UK’s growth and international competitiveness. I have to note serious concerns from stakeholders, however, that the new objectives risk encouraging bad behaviour or, indeed, that they do not go far enough. As we know from the excesses of the 2008 financial crisis, there are unscrupulous actors in the system.
If, in pursuit of growth and competitiveness, the PRA even slightly deprioritises
“promoting the safety and soundness of PRA authorised persons”,
or if the FCA deprioritises
“ensuring that the relevant markets function well”,
consumers and the markets will once again be under serious threat. It is a fact that the last crisis is now a relatively long time ago and many have forgotten the extent to which the taxpayer was required to save the London financial system and, indeed, to a large extent, the world’s financial system. I would therefore appreciate it if the Minister could assure us that the regulators’ primary objectives will and must remain their utmost concern and, crucially, of the mechanism by which she will guarantee this. If not, we will consider tabling or supporting a Committee stage amendment to this effect.
Clauses 27 to 46 provide for the accountability of the regulators to the Treasury, Parliament and the public. Clause 36, in particular, will formalise the role of the Treasury Committee.
I commend the hard work of all the parliamentarians who made efforts to secure these clauses. This is a positive step and good for the scrutiny of government policy. I was involved in the 2021 efforts to introduce scrutiny when we got relatively limited support. I am therefore pleased to see the extent of support for improved scrutiny in today’s debate. It is particularly important that there should be such consensus on this point. We may have to move well beyond equality with the Commons in our activity towards a firmer, more powerful approach, which will need to be of high quality and properly supported; the essence of much of today’s debate has been about balance.
I therefore also ask the Minister to give the House of Lords’ expert Economic Affairs Committee an equal statutory scrutiny role—or, indeed, as I have just said, going beyond that. Although it is welcome that regulators will have to reply formally to any responses the EAC gives to their consultation, I will look to amend the Bill to ensure that this House is given a similar, thorough oversight role.
As concerns the rest of this section, new powers allowing greater involvement from government in the FCA’s and PRA’s rule-making process must be carefully balanced with the need to protect their independence, which has already been threatened by the intervention power. I know that HMT works closely with the regulators informally, but I can see how a statutory right to request rule reviews and reports, on any matter and at will, could tempt overreach by an activist Chancellor. This will need careful scrutiny once again from your Lordships’ House. I would appreciate an assurance from the Minister that these new powers will be used only sparingly. An example of when she imagines they might be necessary would be useful.
Turning to what is not in the Bill, a lot of these provisions, though important, probably feel quite distant and specialist to members of the public. This is not so regarding access to cash. I strongly welcome Clauses 51 and 52 which will finally, after years of delay, protect cash access. Regrettably, the Bill does nothing to protect face-to-face banking services, nor free-of-charge access to cash. The most vulnerable in our society depend on these for financial advice and support. Again, this is not a niche issue, as 15% of transactions by volume are still made in cash. I recognise the forces referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that will bring about the eventual end of cash, but we are not there yet. Cash will be very important for at least a couple of decades and it will need preserving in law.
However, because almost 6,000 bank branches have closed since 2015, small business owners in particular have to travel longer distances to deposit any cash they accept. This is a huge disincentive for them to accept cash; consequently, we see more and more businesses now being unwilling to do so. We must ensure that small businesses can deposit cash easily, which is why we will table an amendment guaranteeing a minimum level of free-of-charge access to cash services for the UK’s SMEs. I hope the Minister will agree that both face-to-face and free-of-charge cash access are absolutely crucial for financial inclusion. I therefore hope we can work with her and colleagues across the House to implement robust guarantees.
It is equally disappointing that the Bill misses the opportunity to address the gigantic problem of financial fraud, which costs the economy over £1 billion every year. The Bill hints at it with Clause 68, which enhances protection against authorised push payments. On this measure, reimbursement is eligible only for Faster Payments system payments and not others. The reason for this demarcation is not entirely clear. I would appreciate any light the Minister can shed.
Scammers are outpacing the Government. As the last National Fraud Strategy came out 12 years ago in 2011, since when vast billions have been lost by this Government to Covid fraudsters, I would have thought action in this area would be a quick win. I urge the Minister and her officials to think about how the Bill might be used to be proactive on this. Your Lordships’ House can expect an amendment from us to compel the Government to produce a national fraud strategy for this decade, and update it at least every five years.
Another area in which we feel the Bill lacks ambition is support for the mutual and co-operative sector. Clause 69 contains some long-overdue provisions, such as enabling credit unions to offer a wider range of products. But the Bill does not otherwise address the outdated regulatory regime faced by credit unions, building societies and co-operative banks. We have seen numerous building societies threatened with demutualisation in recent years, while the number of mutual credit unions has plummeted by more than 20% since 2016.
The UK stands apart from other advanced economies. We lack a strong system of mutually and/or co-operatively owned regional banks. A lack of consumer choice in this area has driven many people to high-interest or unethical borrowing options and is part of our financial inclusion problem. I venture that a helpful first step might be to require the FCA and PRA to report on how they have considered the needs of credit unions, building societies, mutuals and co-operative regional banks. Does the Minister agree that these models deserve parity of esteem and should be encouraged? Would she be sympathetic to an amendment to facilitate this?
Furthermore, the Bill has very little to say about green finance. Clause 25, which codifies the regulators’ responsibility under the Climate Change Act 2008, is welcome. However, the Government have promised much more radical action. It was suggested that the UK would become the world’s first net-zero financial sector. In contrast, there is still no updated green finance strategy after years of promise. The Government have had enough chances to produce it, to introduce sustainability disclosure requirements and, particularly importantly, to produce a plan for green taxonomy. I fear it now falls to this House to help the Government by amending this Bill.
Finally, turning to the Edinburgh reforms, if amendments are to be introduced through the Bill to facilitate these proposals, it is essential that the House has a full appreciation of the reforms. The Government should produce a comprehensive briefing document to avoid the requirement to move many probing amendments to clarify government intentions. We must fully understand the package and, in particular, the extent to which it may enable a weakening of the senior managers and certification regime, or a reversal of the essential ring-fencing measures designed to protect the UK from the catastrophe of a financial crash. We must keep reminding ourselves that the UK’s financial stability is essential to encouraging investment and growth. To abolish ring-fencing and the stability it brings to facilitate growth is a contradiction in terms.
In sum, I hope I have made clear my support for the Bill, which marks an important step in the journey of our financial services sector outside the European Union. In this debate there has been an amazing degree of consensus. Outstanding issues in each of these areas have, in general, been issues of balance. No serious, obvious political divisions have arisen—I even found myself agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, so it could not have been too bad. I ask the Minister to recognise that there will be a need for significant change to adjust those balances and that force, I hope, will come from overwhelming consensus.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for their valuable contributions, which reflect the breadth and significance of this Bill. I will try to get through as many points as possible but, looking at the stack of papers before me, I think I have been overambitious—so I will dive straight in.
Turning first to the future regulatory framework review, which is a once in a generation opportunity to update our rulebook and tailor it to UK markets, as I have said before, the Bill revokes retained EU law relating to financial services so it can be replaced by a coherent and agile approach designed for the UK, building on the FiSMA model. I reassure my noble friend Lord Hodgson that, when the repeal of retained EU law commences and the Government lay secondary legislation to replace it, the Treasury will fully assess the impacts of the exercise of these powers in secondary legislation. We will conduct impact assessments and post-implementation reviews in line with the Cabinet Office guidance and the Government’s Better Regulation Framework.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, probed further on the process for replacing the different regulations and Clause 4 and the procedures associated with it. The affirmative procedure applies to statutory instruments made under Clause 4, except where the power is used to restate either EU tertiary legislation or legislation which was originally made under the negative procedure, or where there is no modification of retained EU law. In this case, it is appropriate to follow previous precedent and apply the negative procedure. EU tertiary legislation is technically complex and the same is true where the negative procedure was used for UK statutory instruments—these were technical SIs. Given the thousands of pages of retained EU law to deal with, as has been referenced in this debate, it is important that we ensure that Parliament can focus on potential policy implications from the changes we may make to retained EU law.
I turn now to the debate on the objectives for the regulators which are the starting point for the framework we will be taking forward. Those objectives are set out in FSMA and are amended in this Bill in two key ways: the introduction of the secondary objective on international competitiveness and medium and long-term growth, and a new regulatory principle to have regard to the Government’s net-zero commitment. The noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Tunnicliffe, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Bryan of Partick, and others raised concerns about ensuring that the secondary objective does not dilute the regulators’ focus on the primary objective, whereas many other noble Lords spoke in favour of the new secondary objective. Noble Lords such as my noble friend Lord Bridges were perhaps concerned that it may not go far enough. The Government believe that having growth and competitiveness as a secondary objective strikes the right balance between providing a new focus on advancing medium to long-term growth and competitiveness while maintaining the regulators’ focus on their existing objectives. It provides a clear hierarchy of objectives to consider, and the regulators will need to balance those objectives and consider them in a way which respects that hierarchy.
The PRA’s existing secondary competition objective provides the model for how that hierarchy operates: the regulators must advance their secondary objectives in so far as that is compatible with their primary objective. However, with the introduction of the secondary objective, the Government expect that it will fulfil the expectations of many of those who have spoken in this House in support of delivering a step change in how the regulators approach growth and competitiveness, resulting in more proportionate rule-making while still ensuring high regulatory standards. As my noble friend Lord Remnant said in his excellent maiden speech, the UK is not unique in giving its regulators such an additional objective. He demonstrated the expertise that he will bring to this House, particularly in debates on this Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Butler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, spoke of the context for some of their concern around the introduction of the secondary objective and the previous structure we had for regulating financial services prior to the financial crisis. The FSA’s objectives prior to the financial crisis were market confidence, public awareness, consumer protection and the reduction of financial crime. The FSA did not have a financial stability objective. Noble Lords are right that one of the regulatory principles that the FSA had to take into account was the international character of financial services and markets, and the desirability of maintaining the competitive position of the United Kingdom. However, the post-crisis reforms focused on the institutional design and allocation of responsibilities, with the FSA abolished and replaced by both the PRA, which focuses on the safety and soundness of the financial sector, and the FCA, which focuses on market integrity, consumer protection and competition. The Government’s view is that those post-crisis structural reforms, along with the regulators’ existing primary objectives, mean that the environment in which the regulators are considering competitiveness is very different from that which has gone before.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Sheehan and Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, questioned the Government’s decision to make the net-zero commitment a regulatory principle rather than an objective. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked about the difference between the two, while my noble friend Lord Bridges asked what would happen if objectives and principles are in tension with each other. On the question of objectives versus principles, the FCA and the PRA are required to advance their objectives when discharging their functions. The regulatory principles, on the other hand, are principles that the FCA and the PRA are required to take into account when discharging their functions. Having the net-zero target as a regulatory principle ensures that the Government’s commitment to achieve net zero will be embedded across the FCA’s and the PRA’s considerations when they discharge their general functions. The net-zero target is a cross-cutting government policy that we have seen in many different pieces of legislation that we have taken forward through this House. On the specific goal, many of the levers sit outside financial services regulation, so it is appropriately progressed by the FCA and the PRA as a regulatory principle, which means that they will consider it in advancing their own objectives.
Another significant focus of today’s debate has been, rightly, on how we hold the regulators to account for their progress in furthering their objectives and regulatory principles and their broader approach to regulation. Any Minister would be wise to listen carefully when an issue draws such a diverse set of voices from across the House as we have heard today.
It is worth setting out the parliamentary scrutiny and oversight procedures that are already a key part of the FiSMA process and how the Bill builds on those. There are already robust mechanisms to ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the regulators. Select Committees play an extremely important role in this process, as we have heard. As noble Lords know and have pointed out, they have the power to call for persons, papers and records that they consider relevant, and committees in both Houses regularly exercise this power to hold the regulators to account. Senior officials from the regulators attend general accountability hearings. For example, the FCA chair and chief executive appear before the Treasury Select Committee, or TSC, twice a year, and the chief executive of the PRA appears before the TSC after the publication of each annual report.
Parliament, through the TSC, conducts the pre-commencement hearings following the appointment of the chair and chief executive of the FCA, and the chief executive of the PRA. Most recently, the TSC held a pre-commencement hearing for the new FCA chair on 14 December before he takes up his role next month. FiSMA requires the Treasury to lay the regulators’ annual reports before Parliament.
The Bill builds on and strengthens these existing mechanisms of parliamentary scrutiny. First, the Bill requires the regulators to notify the Treasury Select Committee when they publish a consultation. Secondly, the Bill requires the regulators to respond formally to representations made by any parliamentary committee. I note the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords should also be notified, and I am happy to discuss that proposal with him as the Bill progresses. I note that the noble Lord, along with many other noble Lords, proposed alternative committee structures, including Joint Committee structures, to scrutinise the work of the regulators. But here it is Parliament’s responsibility to determine the best structure for its ongoing scrutiny of the regulators, and the Government do not intend to make any recommendations to Parliament on this matter. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, and others, I am sure that those responsible for determining those structures in Parliament will follow our debate on this question very carefully.
However, I would add that the additional accountability and reporting mechanisms provided by this Bill are designed to assist Parliament and government in holding the regulators to account. For example, when the regulators make rules using the powers that FiSMA gives them, they are required to do so in a way that advances their objectives. When notifying the TSC of a consultation, the regulators will be required to set out the ways in which their proposals advance the objectives and are compatible with their regulatory principles. This will support ex ante scrutiny of proposed rules at a point in the process where there is scope to influence the final outcome.
The changes that the Bill makes regarding cost-benefit analysis, including the additional challenge provided through the formation of a new cost-benefit analysis panel, will ensure that Parliament has access to high-quality information on the expected costs and benefits of new regulatory proposals to inform their scrutiny. The Treasury may also make recommendations to the regulators on aspects of the Government’s economic policy to which the regulators should have regard, known as remit letters. The new provisions in Clause 33, with equivalent provision made elsewhere in the Bill for the Bank of England and the Payment Systems Regulator, will require the regulators to respond in writing to these recommendations and the Treasury to lay the responses before Parliament. Clause 37 enables the Treasury to require the regulators to publish relevant information on a more frequent basis than in their annual reports, or in greater detail. This can also be used to support parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. For example, it could be used to publish further information on authorisation decisions, as highlighted by my noble friend Lord Hill.
These changes are designed to support Parliament in fulfilling its existing role in scrutinising the work of regulators. If there is a concern that any of the regulators’ rules are not operating effectively, the Bill gives the Treasury a power to require the regulator to review its rules when this is in the public interest. When appropriate, the Treasury may specify that the review should be carried out by an independent person rather than the regulator.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that the Government expect that this power will be used only exceptionally, and that any such direction must be laid before Parliament, but I think noble Lords will agree that it is an important element of these reforms. I also expect that, in considering the exercise of this power, the Treasury will consider representations from relevant parties, including within Parliament.
The provisions we have put forward in the Bill seek to balance the operational independence of the regulators with clear accountability mechanisms and appropriate democratic input. We have heard a range of views on where that balance should lie, and the Government are confident that we have struck it in an appropriate way. We will continue to listen and will discuss further ideas in Committee in a thoughtful and constructive way, and will welcome suggestions from noble Lords in this area, including from my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, who I congratulate on his maiden speech, as I do my noble friend Lady Lawlor on her contribution to the debate today.
More broadly, on the regulators’ capacity to take on their further responsibilities, my noble friend Lord Grimstone asked about the FCA board. The Government believe that the board comprises members with extensive and broad experience in financial services, consumer advocacy and governance, among other things. The Government are further strengthening the FCA board this year, with Ashley Alder starting as the new FCA chair, as I already referenced. The Government are also running a campaign to appoint at least two new non-executive directors.
The noble Lords, Lord Sikka and Lord Mountevans, asked about FCA capacity more broadly. As noble Lords will be aware, the FCA is part-way through a transformation programme designed to make it a more innovative, assertive and adaptive regulator. Among other things, it aims to ensure that the FCA can make fast and effective decisions and prioritise the right outcomes for consumers, markets and firms. The Government continue to engage the regulator on its work here.
On innovation more broadly, many noble Lords asked about the Government’s strategic approach to crypto assets. We are committed to creating a regulatory environment in which firms can innovate while crucially maintaining financial stability and regulatory standards, so that people can use new technologies safely and reliably. We have already taken action in the area of crypto—for example, bringing it into the remit of the anti-money laundering regime and banning the sale of crypto asset derivatives to consumers. We are committed to consulting on a broader set of crypto assets, including those primarily used as a means of investment, such as bitcoin. My understanding is that it is still the intention for the Royal Mint to create a new NFT, and an update on this work will be provided in due course. It will be the regulations under the Bill that will allow for the regulation of stablecoins, backed by fiat currency. I can say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that specific definitions will be provided for that in secondary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked about the operation of regulatory sandboxes. The Government have emphasised that the testing of technology and practices in an FMI sandbox should not compromise existing regulatory outcomes, including market integrity and financial stability. The Treasury and regulators will very carefully consider what sort of investors should be able to use platforms in a sandbox. If consumers are allowed to use a platform participating in a sandbox, it is essential that the platform operates in a way that is consistent with existing regulatory objectives relating to consumer protection.
I turn to consumer protection and financial inclusion, an issue raised by a number of noble Lords, many of whom have done very important work in this area, and I am grateful to them for that. The noble Baronesses, Lady Twycross, Lady Bryan and Lady Tyler, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, my noble friend Lord Holmes and others highlighted the important role that cash continues to play for many. The Government are committed to ensuring through the Bill reasonable access to cash across the UK. The FCA is best placed to deliver an effective, agile and evidence-based approach to regulating access to cash that can endure over time, and the Bill will allow for that. In approaching the policy statement that will inform this, the Government will consider how effective industry schemes have been in ensuring reasonable, free access to cash for individuals, and the policy statement is the right place to consider this matter further. The Government will reflect on the views of parliamentarians when crafting that statement.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans asked how rurality will be considered in that process. The FCA will be obliged to consider local as well as national deficiencies in cash, which would be relevant in rural areas; even if it is not subject to the same rural-proofing guidance, it will be subject to the equality duties around protected characteristics in undertaking that work. Where closure of bank branches affects access to cash, intervening in a closure would be within the scope of the FCA’s new powers in the Bill, provided that this fulfilled the purpose of seeking to ensure reasonable provision of cash access services. More broadly, decisions on in-person banking services are made by the providers of those services. However, that is still governed by the FCA’s existing powers and recently strengthened guidance on actions that must be taken when people seek to close branches to ensure that customers are treated fairly.
Financial fraud was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Tunnicliffe, my noble friend Lord Northbrook and many others. In financial services specifically, this Bill takes a crucial step forward in protecting victims of APP fraud. I emphasise that the measure enables the Payment Systems Regulator to take action in relation to any payment system that it regulates, not just faster payments. However, the initial focus is on faster payments because that is where the vast majority of APP fraud currently takes place. The Government expect protections for consumers in other payment systems to keep pace with those established for faster payments.
More broadly, noble Lords are right that tackling fraud requires a unified and co-ordinated response from government, law enforcement and the private sector. I attended a meeting of the Joint Fraud Taskforce, which brings those different players together, just before the end of last year. The Government are committed to publishing their national fraud strategy later this year.
The consumer duty versus the duty of care was raised by many noble Lords. The FCA’s consumer duty consultation paper explains that there is a lack of consensus on exactly what constitutes a duty of care in this context. It cannot be exhaustively defined, but the FCA’s view is that a duty of care is a positive obligation on a person to ensure that their conduct towards others meets a set standard. It believes the consumer duty meets that definition.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, rightly and powerfully raised the challenges those with mental health issues can face when accessing or using financial services. The Government have taken quite a bit of action in this area, such as the introduction of the breathing space scheme for problem debt. The FCA has also been clear about the need for firms to respond flexibly to the needs of customers with characteristics of vulnerability, which includes mental health.
Buy now, pay later was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Balfe. We committed to bring this into regulation and will publish a consultation on draft legislation very soon. We intend to lay secondary legislation in mid-2023, so action on that is under way.
Finally, I am conscious of time, but I must turn more broadly to sustainability and green finance issues, as raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Sheehan and Lady Northover, and many others. They are right that the financial services sector has a critical role to play in global efforts to meet net zero. That is why we have included the measure in the Bill to amend the regulators’ regulatory principles to advance the net-zero objective.
I will not dwell on that any further, except to respond to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the French and German regulators having climate change objectives. The codes and objectives for French and German regulators focus on instances of financial risk and greenwashing; the FCA can already consider these issues through advancing its operational objectives to ensure appropriate consumer protection and protect market integrity, and the PRA can similarly consider climate-related financial risks under its existing objective to ensure the safety and soundness of its regulated firms.
More broadly, noble Lords asked about measures that go beyond those in this Bill. I reassure them that work continues on taking forward the policies in the Greening Finance road map, including introducing economy-wide sustainability disclosure requirements—the FCA has launched its consultation on this already—and introducing transition planning requirements. We have also launched the transition plan task force, which has published its consultation, which will close next month. We are committed to updating our Green Finance Strategy early this year, setting out our approach on the green taxonomy and having a net-zero aligned financial sector. I am sure we will have many more discussions on this topic in Committee, which I look forward to, including on deforestation, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and my noble friend Lord Randall.
On deforestation, financial institutions rely on the information disclosed by companies trading in these forest-risk commodities in order to take action, so a global framework for this disclosure is needed to make any action by UK financial services and firms overseas workable. That is exactly why we are a leading backer on the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. I was really happy to meet the task force in Montreal at COP 15 to discuss its work and how we are taking it forward.
I am out of time. I will pick up further questions from the debate in writing; I have not been able to cover them all here. To conclude, this is a landmark Bill, which I think many of the speakers in this debate have recognised, and the most ambitious reform of our regulatory framework in over 20 years. The Government are committed to building an open, green and technologically advanced financial services sector to deliver better outcomes for consumers and businesses. I am confident that the Financial Services and Markets Bill delivers on this commitment.
Baroness Penn
That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the Bill in the following order: Clause 1, Schedule, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clauses 3 to 8, Schedule 3, Clauses 9 to 13, Schedule 4, Clauses 14 to 20, Schedule 5, Clause 21, Schedule 6, Clauses 22 to 48, Schedule 7, Clauses 49 to 51, Schedule 8, Clause 52, Schedule 9, Clause 53, Schedule 10, Clause 54, Schedule 11, Clause 55, Schedules 12 and 13, Clauses 56 to 69, Schedule 14, Clauses 70 to 79, Title.