House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Our fantastic teachers do an amazing job day in, day out, and I am proud to say that we have increased the number of teachers by 24,000 since 2010. Recruitment and retention has been a key challenge in every industry, in every country and in every Department that I have worked in. Whether attracting data analysts at the start of the dotcom era, or broadening the routes into healthcare professions, it is always a challenge. We are bolstering teacher numbers through the highest pay award for 30 years and we are providing generous bursaries worth up to £27,000, as well as our levelling-up premium, which is worth up to £3,000 each year for five years for maths, physics, chemistry and computing teachers.
Beth Winter
The National Foundation for Educational Research says today that a strategy for improving recruitment and retention should involve
“pay uplifts that are higher than pay growth in the wider labour market for most or all teachers”.
Does the Secretary of State agree? Is it not the case that she cannot address the crisis until she gives teachers and support staff the fully funded, inflation-plus pay rise that they deserve?
Gillian Keegan
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. In 2019, we launched the Government’s first ever integrated strategy to recruit and retain more teachers in schools, which had a number of different strands in it, including supporting teachers on the way in, recruiting more, and various routes into teaching. Of course, we have an independent pay review body and this year we accepted all its recommendations in full.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
On Friday morning, I was privileged to attend St Paulinus Church of England Primary School in Crayford to speak with teachers and to answer pupils’ questions. As my right hon. Friend knows, an inspirational teacher is often key to opening opportunities for a young person’s future. What more can the Government do to help to retain more of those good, aspirational teachers?
Gillian Keegan
I thank my right hon. Friend for his work. Many of us have a treat on a Friday when we go into our fantastic schools and meet lots of children. The early career framework, which was introduced last year, is focused on trying to ensure that we support teachers, particularly in the first five years, so that we retain more of them. The figures show that the risk of retention is in those first five years, so we have put a lot of work and effort into making sure that we support them more during that period.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Of course, recruitment and retention of teachers is important, but all hon. Members will prioritise keeping schoolchildren safe from sexual predators. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be aware of the Scottish child abuse inquiry, detailing the horrific allegations from a number of witnesses to events at Edinburgh Academy and Fettes College by an individual referred to as Edgar. I have a number of constituents who have complaints against Edgar. This man has admitted to inappropriate behaviour and is currently fighting extradition from South Africa, where he has been publicly named. There is a precedent in England where another alleged abuser living in South Africa, whose extradition has been sought, has been publicly named. We now know that dozens of boys have come forward to the police with allegations against the man referred to as Edgar. It is important that others who were abused by this man can come forward. It is right that his crimes against children are named and it is also right that he is now named. It is for this reason that it is in the public interest that the real name of Edgar—that is, Iain Wares—is now publicly known.
Gillian Keegan
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Child sexual abuse is an abhorrent crime and the Government are sympathetic to the victims and survivors of such abuse. As set out in November in response to the final report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, it is important that due process is followed to allow investigatory and legal processes to take place to maximise the chances of conviction.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government intend to raise starting salaries for teachers to £30,000 a year and that the pension entitlement that teachers enjoy is far higher than those earning the same wage in the private sector?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend makes a good point. In line with our manifesto commitment to raise the starting salary, it is £28,000 this year and it will be £30,000 from September next year. I can confirm that the employer contribution to teachers’ pensions is 23.6%, which is considerably higher than for many in the private sector.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State says she wants to support teachers, particularly in the first five years, and that the £30,000 a year salary will kick in next year. In London, people often move after about five years because they simply cannot afford to rent privately or buy in the capital. What is she doing, both in the immediate and the long term, to make sure that we keep good teachers in London?
Gillian Keegan
The hon. Lady may be aware that we have a London weighting for teachers, but I accept that the costs of accommodation in London are extremely high in some areas.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
It is, indeed, a treat to visit schools. On Friday, I visited the brilliant Horndean Technology College, where I was told that there are 20 ways of getting into teaching, but still schools are struggling to get teachers. What more can we do to slim down those 20 ways, which seem rather a lot, and ensure that we have well-qualified teachers to teach pupils to a high standard?
Gillian Keegan
One of the main things we are doing is making sure that we have bursaries to attract teachers, particularly in subjects where there is a lot of competition for those skills. I am actually hoping to increase the number of routes, because we are looking to have an apprenticeship for teaching at undergraduate level, so that people who need to earn and learn can also be attracted into teaching.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Having dumped the Schools Bill, the only education policy this Government seem to have is a gimmick announcement on making maths compulsory until 18, a plan that experts say is unachievable in the light of the teacher recruitment crisis. What discussion did the Secretary of State have with the Prime Minister before his announcement, because surely she would have told him it was unworkable, given that the Government have missed their recruitment target for maths teachers in each of the last 10 years?
Gillian Keegan
We very much have a focus on making sure that our standards are very high in schools and that our children have the very best education to compete globally when they need to get into the workforce. If we look at every other developed economy, we see that in pretty much all of them children do maths in some form up to the age of 18, and we are a bit of an outlier. We are looking to raise the expectations and standards to make sure that our children can compete, and to also give them financial skills for life. Of course, we will work with the sector, and it is a longer-term strategy to make sure that we have enough maths teachers. We have a number of strategies already in place, because it is always tough to recruit maths teachers, and that is why we have introduced a bursary of up to £27,000 for all maths teachers and also for many science teachers.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
All children, no matter their special educational need or disability, deserve the right support to be able to succeed. We will be publishing a full response to the SEND and alternative provision Green Paper in an improvement plan early this year, and we continue to work closely with children, families and education, healthcare and local government sectors on this very important issue.
Kerry McCarthy
Today is Blue Monday, and I am sure that both you, Mr Speaker, and the Education Secretary will be pleased to know that, following our event last year, the band New Order and the charity CALM—the Campaign Against Living Miserably—have teamed up together today to urge people not to hold back from seeking help with their mental health if they need it. However, as we discussed at that event, too many children are facing unconscionable delays in getting assessed and in getting support. Too many children risk being damaged for life as a result, so will the Minister please get a move on and bring forward the response to the SEND review consultation? Children should not have to wait any longer.
Claire Coutinho
I can assure the hon. Lady that we are working incredibly hard, and we will be publishing a response imminently. In the meantime, we are rolling out training on mental health to all schools across the country, and I am working very hard with my counterparts at the Department for Health and Social Care to make sure that, when we look at the proposals on SEND, they are brought fully into the picture as well.
David Johnston
Many parents in Oxfordshire are unhappy with the county council for a variety of reasons—from emails that are never answered, to education, health and care plans that come back with wrong child’s details, to long delays in receiving EHCPs. My hon. Friend will know that many parents want an EHCP because it has become the only way to get support for their children, though this might not have been necessary had they received support from the school at an earlier stage. What steps is she taking to address this?
Claire Coutinho
My hon. Friend has raised this issue with me several time. One key part of the reforms set out in the SEND Green Paper will be clear standards about what help children with different SEND needs should be getting at school. That will give parents greater transparency and accountability regarding what their child should reasonably get, and also means that children will get the early help that my hon. Friend so rightly talks about.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that Devon’s children’s services have been failing for many years, with special educational needs a particular problem. Following the latest inspector’s damning report, the county council has belatedly appointed a new head of children’s services. Will the Minister make clear to the political leadership of Devon County Council that if things do not improve quickly, she will have no hesitation in stripping Devon of its responsibility for children’s services?
Claire Coutinho
We work with all areas that are struggling to provide SEND services through our regions group work, our delivering better value programmes, and our safety valve programmes. I will, of course, look at the issue carefully, and we always step in and act when we need to.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
One of the best ways in which young people with SEND can be supported is by remaining in the local area to be educated. That is why I am delighted that, thanks to a significant amount of Government investment, Middlehurst School, which is currently sitting empty, is now being built to create 80 new SEND school places. Will my hon. Friend congratulate Councillor Janine Bridges from Stoke-on-Trent City Council on that amazing work, and will she pledge to come and open that school when it is ready, hopefully at the end of this year?
Claire Coutinho
I absolutely commend the work of Councillor Janine Bridges. It sounds as if she is doing a tremendous job to increase the number of places for SEND children. I would also be delighted to come and see whether I can open the school.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
I know how important childcare is to the Chair of the Education Committee, and I look forward to his Committee’s report on that issue. Getting this right is fundamentally important for parents and children, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing is considering all options to improve the cost, flexibility and availability of childcare and, crucially, outcomes for children. It may interest Opposition Members to know that since 2010 we have doubled Labour’s offer of free childcare for three to four-year-olds, from 15 to 30 hours. We have also introduced 15 hours a week of free childcare for disadvantaged two-year-olds, and parents on universal credit can claim back up to 85% of their childcare costs.
Mr Walker
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, and she is right to set out what has been achieved. She will recognise that access to affordable and high-quality childcare is high on the agenda of parents and Members across the House, and as she said, the Education Committee is looking into that issue. There has been much speculation in the media as to whether this issue remains a priority for the Government. Will she reassure me and the Committee that she plans further reform and investment in this space?
Gillian Keegan
I reassure my hon. Friend and the whole House that childcare is important to this Government —indeed, I met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about this issue only last week. Helping working families to take up childcare and remain in work is a Government priority, and we have taken steps to ensure that that happens. We want to ensure that people benefit from a lot of the schemes we have in place, as some of them are underutilised. We have a £1.2 million Childcare Choices campaign to increase the use of such schemes, but we will go further. We are considering all options to improve the affordability and availability of childcare and, crucially, outcomes for children.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Sadly, childcare is not the only thing that parents are struggling to afford, and I am grateful to Karen Taylor from Rooted in Hull for drawing to my attention work done by the Child Poverty Action Group on poverty proofing schools. That provides a toolkit for schools to look at their academic year, identify times when they are asking parents to pay money, and try to find ways to alleviate that and reduce the costs to parents. Will the Secretary of State join me in encouraging many schools up and down the country, academy chains and headteachers, to look at that toolkit and do what they can to reduce the costs associated with sending children to school?
Gillian Keegan
Of course we are always focused on what more we can do. We obviously have pupil premium funding, school uniform guidance and the highest number of children benefiting from free school meals, and in deprived areas we have introduced breakfast clubs. We all know that economically, times are tough, which is why we are very much focused on trying to get inflation down and on the Prime Minister’s pledge to halve inflation this year.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Childcare is essential social infrastructure that underpins our economy by supporting parents to work. Yet in 2022, more than 5,000 childcare providers closed, and more than half of all local authority areas saw a net loss of childcare places. The Government have admitted that they pay providers less than it costs them to deliver so-called free childcare places, and with energy bills and wages going up from April, many more providers are at risk of closure. A crisis in our early years sector is happening right now. What are the Government going to do to stop further childcare providers closing?
Gillian Keegan
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Actually, Ofsted data shows that the number of childcare places has remained broadly stable at 1.3 million since August 2015. At the spending review in 2021 we announced additional funding of £160 million in 2022-23, £180 million in 2023-24 and £170 million in 2024-25 compared with the 2021-22 financial year. That will allow local authorities to increase the hourly rates paid to childcare providers.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Robert Halfon)
We are transforming people’s life chances by enabling them to climb the education and skills ladder of opportunity. On 9 January, we announced that in financial year 2023-24 we will increase funding rates to invest a further £125 million in 16-to-19 education. Some £18.5 million has been invested in 16-to-19 education in institutions that cover the Waveney constituency.
Peter Aldous
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Taking into account both the urgent need to address acute skills shortages in key sectors of the economy and the fact that participation in adult education fell from 4.4 million in 2003-04 to 1.5 million in 2019-20, it is vital that further education capacity is significantly expanded. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor highlighted the importance of investment in skills in his autumn statement. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister could set out the work that has been done to meet that challenge ahead of the spring statement.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is an FE champion; I welcome his question. He will be pleased to know that we are investing in resources, increasing skills funding by £3.8 billion over the Parliament, investing in quality qualifications such as T-levels, higher technical qualifications, free level 3 courses, bootcamps and apprenticeships. We are also investing in infrastructure, rolling out 21 institutes of technology, spending £290 million.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Come on, my old friend—the Minister can do better than that. The fact of the matter is that further education is still a Cinderella service. When will he wake up to the fact that we desperately need more skilled people in our country and that the FE sector is the one area where we could do real investment that would pay back quickly? I like the Minister a lot—we are old friends—and urge him to get his act together and put some real heft into further education.
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman describes FE as a Cinderella service, but I remind him that Cinderella became a member of the royal family and it is this Government who are banishing the two ugly sisters of under-resourcing and snobbery about further education and skills. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), we are investing £3.8 billion extra in skills in this Parliament and £1.6 billion extra for FE, increasing the number of hours of learning for students. I am proud of the Government’s approach to further education and skills.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Minister was a huge champion for the FE sector when he was Chair of the Education Committee, so it is depressing to hear him now speaking up for the Government. Their funding settlements for FE colleges are the worst in post-war history—and that is not just my view but that of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, whose analysis exposes that per-student funding fell 14% in real terms between 2010 and 2019. Is not the reality that, after 13 years of this Government, only the election of a Labour Government will allow our colleges to play the role that we truly need from them?
Robert Halfon
That is wishful thinking on the part of the hon. Gentleman. The Government are increasing investment in apprenticeships to £2.7 billion by 2024-25. We will be investing an extra £1.6 billion in 16-to-19 education over the same period of time. That includes £500 million a year for T-levels. I mentioned the £290 million being spent on institutes of technology and we have committed £1.5 billion to an upgrade of the FE college estate in England over the next few years. The Government are investing in, and championing, further education and skills. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
As set out in our special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision Green Paper published in March, our ambitious alternative provision reforms will keep all children in AP with the right support in the right setting at the right time. Our reforms will enable children with medical needs or behaviour that present barriers to learning to have the support, skills and confidence they need to thrive.
Rob Butler
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Many of the children I have met in the youth justice system have been excluded from mainstream schools and instead sent to alternative provision. Standards are often very good, but sadly that is far from always the case. Indeed, the Youth Justice Board, on which I used to sit, said:
“An improvement in standards and practice across alternative provision is needed.”
What action is the Minister taking to ensure that alternative provision is not a dumping ground for difficult pupils who mainstream schools want to exclude, and that, by contrast, there is always high-quality teaching and welfare support in AP?
Claire Coutinho
My hon. Friend is a passionate believer in youth justice—in fact, I think that is what we spoke about the first time we met—and he is right to be concerned about this area. There are some great AP settings—I was talking to Mark Vickers of Olive Academies recently—but we know that some settings are delivering very poor outcomes for young people. I am really excited about our proposals on AP. I think they will be transformational and I am happy to discuss them further with my hon. Friend.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Funding for alternative provision for children who are unwell peters out after the age of 16. There was no mention of colleges in last November’s autumn statement. I spoke to a constituent in Devon this morning whose son has been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma and is unable to get the online tuition he needs from our local college. When will colleges receive additional revenue funding so they are able to afford alternative provision for children diagnosed with illnesses like my constituent?
Claire Coutinho
As part of the reforms we are setting out, we will develop a bespoke national alternative framework that will include looking at standards and sustainable post-16 destinations. I am happy to discuss that further with the hon. Gentleman once we publish our proposals.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Family hubs are one-stop shops that make it easier for families to get the support they need and I strongly support them. The Government are investing £300 million in the Family Hubs and Start for Life programme, and 75 local authorities will begin to open hubs later this year.
Sally-Ann Hart
East Sussex County Council submitted an excellent bid for a network of family hubs across East Sussex. Family hubs are a part of the solution to many national and local issues, and now more than ever are vital to many of our local communities. In addition to the roll-out of family hubs, what steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that this fantastic policy has long-term funding to maximise long-term benefits?
Gillian Keegan
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. We are funding 75 councils for the current spending review period. I have no doubt that the excellent work in East Sussex, led by Becky Shaw and her excellent team, and across the country will make the case for further investment.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I am very proud of the work the Government are doing with family hubs, early years and Start for Life. To give babies the very best start to life, every community in Wales has a cylch meithrin—an informal group of mothers, babies and young children. Care within the community is almost a tradition in Wales, but formal support for early years is more variable across Wales. What arrangements are there for sharing or exchanging best practice with the Welsh Government on such important areas?
Gillian Keegan
We have regular meetings with all the devolved authorities, and we share ideas about what we are doing and our policies so that we can learn from one another. There is no monopoly on good ideas; we are always open to listening and sharing.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Since the publication of the independent review of children’s social care, which will also improve the use of family hubs, hundreds of children have been taken into care while millions in profits have been put into the private sector. When will the Secretary of State publish the Government’s delayed response to the review? Will she look at York being a pilot to ensure that we can move forward quickly?
Gillian Keegan
I assure the hon. Lady that the Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing—the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho)—is working actively on the matter. The response will be published soon, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be happy to discuss further how we will roll that out and implement it.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
Maintained nursery schools make an invaluable contribution to improving the lives of disadvantaged children. We are investing an additional £10 million in their supplementary funding from 2023-24, taking the total to approximately £70 million. We are reforming the distribution of the funding to make it fairer, ensuring that all authorities with maintained nursery schools receive supplementary funding.
Theresa Villiers
I warmly welcome that extra funding, because it means for the first time that maintained nursery schools in Barnet will get a share of the supplementary funding. Will the Minister join me in welcoming that funding and express her strong support for the maintained nursery school sector in the future?
Claire Coutinho
My right hon. Friend has consistently and passionately campaigned for the maintained nursery school sector. I agree that it is doing an excellent job, not only in supporting some of the most disadvantaged children, but in sharing expertise and knowledge with other providers.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Sadly, Midford Road Nursery in my constituency was forced to close its doors. Staff shortages were the major reason. Many nurseries in Bath face similar problems, and parents struggle to find alternatives. What advice would the Minister give to parents in Bath who are struggling to find a nursery?
Claire Coutinho
We have increased the funding set out for early years by about half a billion pounds since 2020-21. I agree that workforce is an issue; we are looking at recruitment and retention very carefully and will be setting out proposals as and when we can.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
In December, I announced a further 239 schools that will benefit from large-scale rebuilding and refurbishment projects as part of our school rebuilding programme, which will transform 500 schools across the country. I saw the huge impact that our investments are having at Coundon Court, where I met the headteacher Mr Heal and his students, who were very excited at the prospect of their new classrooms and design and tech and science labs. As Conservatives, we are investing in the future not only of the next generation, but of generations to come. On top of that, we have allocated more than £13 billion to improving school buildings since 2015, including £1.8 billion this year.
James Wild
I welcome the recent addition of the King Edward VII Academy to the school rebuilding programme, following the inclusion of Smithdon High School in an earlier round, and the new investment that is coming to North West Norfolk. However, given Smithdon’s grade II* listed status and the complexity that it brings, can my right hon. Friend assure me that funding for the school is protected? Will Ministers meet me to ensure that we get the heritage and other permissions we need as rapidly as possible?
Gillian Keegan
My Department is working closely with heritage and planning officers to ensure that we can address the condition of Smithdon High School as quickly as possible, while recognising the listed status of the buildings. We are working on the project with Historic England and the Twentieth Century Society, and we would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and provide an update on progress.
Sara Britcliffe
In Hyndburn and Haslingden, we received the fantastic news just before Christmas that the Hyndburn Academy and Haslingden High School will be included in the next round of the school rebuilding programme. I eagerly await the next round so that schools in my patch, such as The Hollins, can apply. Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether school rebuilding programme funding can be used, in conjunction with other investment, for initiatives that benefit not only the school but the wider community?
Gillian Keegan
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent question. We encourage schools to play a positive role in their community, and many choose to provide access to sports and other facilities. The school rebuilding programme directly commissions projects rather than providing funding to schools, so, where feasible, we include additional facilities beyond the scope of a project, if it is funded by the local trust or the local authority. We are interested in making sure that school facilities benefit the wider community.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), visited Joseph Leckie Academy, which really helped, and I had a good meeting with the heads of Joseph Leckie and Blue Coat Church of England Academies along with my friend the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). However, the schools still lost out. Will the Secretary of State, or one of her Ministers, meet those two heads and me to find out why on earth they cannot succeed in obtaining funds for vital repairs?
Gillian Keegan
Obviously some schools are disappointed that they did not have access to those funds. We have announced funding for 400 schools so far and a further 100 will be included in future rounds, but we would be happy to meet the right hon. Lady.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
A Schools Week investigation found that at least 40 schools contained so-called aero-concrete, while 150 more needed further investigation. Officials described the concrete as
“life-expired and liable to collapse”,
which is extremely alarming. NHS England says that it will take until 2035 to remove aero-concrete from all our hospitals; will we be waiting as long as that for it to be removed from our schools?
Gillian Keegan
Last year the Government published updated guidance on identifying and managing reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. In March 2022, all schools were asked to complete a questionnaire about their knowledge of RAAC and its presence in their buildings and asking how, if they had it, they were managing it. We help schools where its presence is confirmed by providing the appropriate technical support, and we want to ensure that we continue that programme.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Robert Halfon)
Many schools and colleges already mark Holocaust Memorial Day—I have attended such a remembrance service at Harlow College—and they work closely with the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust, two institutions that the Government support. That is all the more important given the 128 incidents of antisemitism in one year in our higher education institutions, and the fact that, sadly, such incidents are now at an all-time high.
Daniel Kawczynski
As well as educating children about the horrors of the holocaust and the second world war, can we take the opportunity to educate children about the tremendous courage, bravery and sacrifices of the Righteous Among the Nations? Many people on the continent gave up their lives to protect their Jewish friends and neighbours. One example was a member of my family, Jan Kawczynski, his wife Helena and their 13-year-old daughter Magdalena, who were all shot by the Germans for protecting and hiding their Jewish friends and neighbours on their estate in western Poland. As well as educating children about the misery of the holocaust, we must give them inspiration from the fact that many of our brothers and sisters in occupied Europe made the ultimate sacrifice to protect friends and neighbours of the Jewish faith.
Robert Halfon
Hear, hear. It was very moving to hear of the experience of my hon. Friend’s family, and I entirely agree with him: we must teach and remind people that there were many righteous Gentiles who suffered while doing everything possible to save Jews. A famous Polish lady, Irena Sendler, saved 2,000 Jewish children from the Warsaw ghettos, and was remembered in a special exhibition in the House of Commons in 2018, which I was pleased to attend. My hon. Friend has made a powerful point, and I am sure that schools up and down the country will be listening to what he says.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Robert Halfon)
We are improving the quality of apprenticeships, and Ofsted will be inspecting every apprenticeship provider by 2025. All providers have been asked to re-enrol on the register of apprenticeship training providers. We are intervening to help apprentices and employers as well.
Paul Holmes
My local college, Eastleigh College, works alongside 700 regional employers to deliver high-quality apprenticeships all the way to degree level. Last year nearly a third of apprenticeship starts were at the higher level. What steps are the Government taking to broaden the routes into technical education and increase the number of higher-level apprenticeship starts?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that there have been more than 10,800 apprenticeship starts in his constituency since 2010. We are investing £2.7 billion in apprenticeships by 2025. We are spending £8 million of that on promoting degree-level apprenticeships. We have a big recruitment campaign, Fire It Up, to encourage more apprentices. We are transforming careers advice on apprenticeships in schools and colleges, We pay non-levy-payer small businesses the vast majority of their training costs when they hire apprentices.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Nick Gibb)
The law is clear that schools must prohibit the promotion of partisan political views and take steps to ensure the balanced presentation of opposing views on political issues when they are taught. Guidance to schools on political impartiality was published in February 2022. It summarises the legal position and states that clear and proportionate steps should be taken to ensure that those legal duties are met.
Miriam Cates
You do not have to be a historian, Mr Speaker, to understand the dangers of indoctrinating children, yet YouGov polling for Policy Exchange shows that the majority of UK children are being taught political ideology as fact in school. That includes gender ideology that children can be born in the wrong body and men can have babies; critical race theories that race is a social construct; or sex positivity, such as in the document I have here that instructs teachers of children with learning disabilities to simulate sexual arousal on anatomically correct dolls while playing sexy music in class. These are not isolated incidents but are endemic in our schools. The guidance is not working. What does the Minister intend to do about it?
Nick Gibb
The guidance on political impartiality makes it very clear that when teaching about sensitive political issues relating to discrimination teachers should be mindful of avoiding the promotion of partisan views or presenting contested theories as fact. Schools need to ensure that any resources used in the classroom, particularly those produced by an external organisation, are age-appropriate, suitable and politically impartial. Schools should consult parents and share lesson materials when parents ask to see them.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Nick Gibb)
The Government support the provision of nutritious food in schools, which ensures that children are well-nourished, develop healthy eating habits and can concentrate and learn. Some 1.9 million pupils are eligible for free school meals. That is an increase from 2021, when 1.7 million pupils were eligible. In large part, the increase is due to protections put in place to support families as they move to universal credit. In addition, 1.25 million pupils are eligible under the universal infant free school meal programme.
Zarah Sultana
Each month, 4 million children experience food insecurity, go to bed hungry and set off to school on an empty stomach. To tackle this injustice, my free school meals for all Bill would guarantee that every child in England had a hot, healthy meal each day, just as they do in Scotland and Wales. It could be paid for twice over by removing the private schools’ £1.7 billion tax break, a move that the Conservative party on the Government Benches blocked last week. My Bill is due to get its Second Reading on Friday. Will the Minister back my Bill, or does he believe that protecting tax breaks for elite private schools is more important than feeding hungry children?
Nick Gibb
The Government have extended free school meals to more groups of children than any Government over the past century, including Labour Governments, increasing numbers from 1.7 million to 1.9 million children. This Government introduced an extension to 85,000 students in further education colleges, new eligibility for some children of families with no recourse to public funds, and a scheme for 1.25 million children in infant schools.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Levelling Up Secretary said in October that extending free school meal provision would be the most timely, effective and targeted of all public health interventions that this Government could make. The Scottish Government have already committed to universal free school meals for primary children. Does the Minister agree with his colleague? If not, what targeted interventions would he make to tackle child hunger?
Nick Gibb
We are spending £1.6 billion a year on free school meals for children. We want to make sure that that funding is targeted at the most needy. That is precisely what is happening. We accept the point, and I agree with the hon. Lady that it is important that free school meals are provided to children from disadvantaged backgrounds and those who cannot afford meals at lunchtime—and we are doing that. As I said, we have increased the number of children eligible for benefit-related free school meals from 1.7 million to 1.9 million pupils.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Schools, like families and businesses across the world, are facing global inflationary pressures. The Prime Minister has pledged to halve inflation, and school funding will increase by £2 billion next year as well as the year after that. This will be the highest real-terms spending on schools in history, totalling £58.8 billion by 2024-25. In 2010, school funding stood at £35 billion, so we will be delivering a 68% increase in cash terms. The Government have also announced further support for parents worth £26 billion next year.
Mr Dhesi
In addition to having grave concerns about recruiting and retaining teachers, schools in Slough and across our country continue to struggle with their budgets, with a quarter of primary school senior leaders reporting that they have had to cut outings and trips due to budgetary constraints. How will the Government ensure that children do not miss out on these vital opportunities?
Gillian Keegan
The autumn statement announced significant additional investment in core schools funding. The core schools budget will increase by £2 billion in 2023-24 and 2024-25. That will be paid into schools’ bank accounts in April, and I am sure they will welcome that additional funding.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Nick Gibb)
Two schools in Northumberland are prioritised for the school rebuilding programme, including Ringway Primary School in the hon. Member’s constituency. Schools were nominated by local authorities and trusts, and selected according to the condition of their buildings following a robust assessment process. This is in addition to the £5.8 million of school condition allocation funding for Northumberland County Council in this financial year.
Ian Lavery
The Department’s own report now reclassifies the risk of school buildings collapsing as critical and very urgent. Despite the sterling efforts of headteachers and staff to keep school buildings in decent condition, many children in my constituency are taught in buildings far below the standards they should expect. Despite what the Minister has just said, can he tell the House when adequate funding will be made readily available to bring all schools in my constituency up to scratch?
Nick Gibb
We have allocated £13 billion since 2015 to school buildings and maintenance. In May 2022, for example, the Government announced the outcome of the condition improvement fund bids for 2022-23. That will provide £500 million for 1,400 projects at 1,100 schools and sixth forms. The CIF is for individual schools and groups of schools. In addition, £1.1 billion of school condition allocations was made to local authorities and large groups of academies. We take this issue very seriously and we want to make sure that all our schools are in the best possible condition for pupils to be able to learn.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Robert Halfon)
My Department has made a one-off reallocation of funding to add £15 million to this year’s student premium, now worth £276 million. Universities can support disadvantaged students by drawing on this student premium and their own hardship funds, and many universities such as Newcastle and Northumbria have allocated funds to support disadvantaged students.
Chi Onwurah
Newcastle University student union’s recent cost of living crisis survey revealed that 41% of students had considered dropping out due to financial pressures. They are trying to balance studying with part-time and full-time jobs, and they feel increasingly isolated and exhausted. The student union food bank is restocked daily and is emptied quickly, with the record being within seven minutes. The Minister knows that his additional hardship fund works out at about £10 per student, and students are £1,500 worse off because of the mismanagement of maintenance loans. Why is he punishing students like this?
Robert Halfon
Of course I recognise that some students are facing hardship with the cost of living challenges, like many people up and down the country. The £276 million is a lot of money that universities can draw on. As I mentioned, there has been an increase of £15 million. Students in private accommodation can get a £400 rebate on their energy bills. We have frozen tuition fees for the past few years; by 2024-25, they will have been frozen for seven years. We have increased maximum loans and grants by 2.8% and if students’ incomes fall below a certain level, they can reapply to get their loans looked at. I really welcome the fact that Newcastle University has increased the package of support available to students to more than £1.7 million—
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
As we hear, the cost of living crisis is serious for everyone, but students in particular are facing real hardship. Independent economists estimate that many students will be up to £1,500 worse off this year. Given the Government’s current focus on maths, can the Minister explain how his Government calculated an increase of just 2.8% in the maintenance loan, following 2.3% this year, when the rolling average inflation rate is running at 9.3%?
Robert Halfon
We have to be fair to students, but we have to be fair to the taxpayer as well. We recognise student hardship, which is why we increased the student premium by £15 million to £276 million. Universities have their own hardship funds, and I highlighted the £1.7 million given by Newcastle University. Universities across the country are helping disadvantaged students. Students whose family income falls below a certain level can apply to the Student Loans Company to have their loan reassessed.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Given this is my first Education questions of 2023, Mr Speaker, I would like to wish you, the House and everyone working in our education sector a happy new year, and to share some of what is to come from my Department.
Later this month, along with the Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), I will be announcing our comprehensive plan to reform children’s social care. Soon after, we will return to bring forward our transformational improvement plans to support children with special educational needs.
I hope Members will join me in celebrating National Apprenticeship Week in February, and in April our schools will have something to celebrate as they receive their funding, which will include the £2 billion uplift announced at the autumn statement. This will see overall funding rise by 15% in just two years. We are investing more in our schools than ever before. By 2024-25, it will be £58.8 billion, the highest real-terms spending in history.
Chi Onwurah
Special educational needs provision in school matters. So many parents contact me either because they cannot access such provision or because it is inadequate. One family with two neurodiverse children suffering from bullying and self-harm found that their school’s SEN policy did not even mention autism or neurodiversity. The Minister said this morning that the Government’s response to the review will be published imminently. Can she confirm that it will be published within the month and that the clear standards she mentioned will be enforced?
Gillian Keegan
I take special educational needs very seriously, as does the Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing. It will be published very soon, so there is not long to wait. I am sure the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) will be delighted with the improvement plan, which we will publish very early in the new year.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman knows this is topical questions? You cannot just go on and on. We have to get through the questions for everyone’s sake.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
I commend Hayley for the work she does. Access to educational psychologists is of paramount importance so that people can get an early diagnosis. We are funding an additional 600 educational psychologists —200 in 2023 and 400 in 2024.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
The Department for Education has raised the risk rating of school buildings collapsing to “critical/very likely”. In December, the schools Minister undertook to publish the data on these dangerous buildings by the end of the year, yet parents, staff and pupils are still in the dark. When will the Secretary of State finally publish this data and own up to the extent of her failure?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Nick Gibb)
As I said earlier, our spending for capital funding in the schools system since 2015 has been £13 billion. We take the safety of schools very seriously. As the Secretary of State said regarding reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, we have written to all schools asking them to complete a questionnaire. As for publishing the data, the Department has already published summary findings from the condition data collection and we plan to publish more detailed data shortly. The condition data collections help us to understand the condition of schools, and we will publish as and when the data is ready.
Mr Speaker
Order. I call Bridget Phillipson to ask her second question. We are going to have to speed it up folks in order to get through.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. There was no answer there, even though the schools Minister said we would see this data last year.
Conservative Members have described their childcare policy as “crazy” and “unnecessarily expensive”, and said that they should “get on” with reforming it. I agree, which is why the next Labour Government will deliver a modern childcare system from the end of parental leave to the end of primary school. If even the Secretary of State’s own colleagues can see the case for change, why can’t she?
Claire Coutinho
The hon. Lady will find that when Labour was in power for 13 years it did nothing on this issue and that it was the Conservative Government who expanded the offer for two, three and four-year-olds for parents. I would love to see the costings of her proposals because I think she is proposing yet more pie in the sky for parents. However, we take this issue seriously and we are committed to increasing the flexibility and affordability of childcare for parents.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
Claire Coutinho
I hope that the 9,000 children will see progress. Not only have we increased the overall funding for SEND by about 50% since 2019, but we are increasing the number of specialist school places. In the reforms, we will be setting out national standards, which I hope will also improve their educational experience.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
As a former teacher, I support the right of our teachers to strike and will oppose this Government’s anti-strike legislation. Does the Secretary of State agree that constructive dialogue with our dedicated teachers is vital, rather than demonising them as “Bolsheviks” and “commies”, as one of her colleagues has disgracefully done?
Gillian Keegan
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I always believe in constructive dialogue. The very first meeting I took as we welcomed in the new year was with all four main teaching unions, and I will be meeting them again later this week.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Nick Gibb
I have visited Carmel College and I know what a good school it is. The initial teacher training reforms are a key part of the Government’s commitment to levelling up and ensuring that high-quality teachers are there for every child. Following an expert review, a robust accreditation process was undertaken to approve 179 providers, covering all regions, including the north-east. ITT provision is also expanding through the partnership. I know that my hon. Friend discussed this matter with my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), and I would be happy to meet him to discuss his concerns.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Claire Coutinho
I can tell the hon. Lady that the high needs funding for Barnsley has increased by 12% year on year for 2023-24 and it will be more than £40 million in total. It will also receive £7 million for high needs provision capital from 2023-25 to increase the number of places.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Gillian Keegan
I am committed to reform in children’s social care across all sectors. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), has been working hard in partnership with the national implementation board and the wider sector to design a plan for reform that will introduce meaningful change for children and families. It is quite a small group, and we have deliberately kept it small, but I will ask my hon. Friend to take a look and check that it is representative.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Nick Gibb
We have met the target for PE teacher recruitment for most of the past 10 years. We have the school sport and activity action plan in place, and there is a new plan being worked on at the moment. We take sport in schools very seriously; it is important for physical and mental health and for academic attainment.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Claire Coutinho
I am really exercised about this issue. I speak to parents of children with SEND all the time, and I do think that they find the experience very adversarial. I will be setting out more details in the implementation strategy shortly, but this is something that I care very passionately about.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The current national school breakfast programme reaches only one quarter of the children living in areas with high levels of deprivation in England. Labour has set out our universal free breakfast offer, which will mean that no child will be too hungry to learn. When will the Government join the Labour party in that commitment?
Nick Gibb
We are spending £30 million between 2021 and 2024 on the school breakfast programme, which offers free breakfast to children in disadvantaged areas, supporting their attainment and readiness to learn. The focus of the breakfast provision has been to target the most disadvantaged areas of the country, and that has been our strategy.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
Claire Coutinho
I thank my right hon. Friend for his collaborative approach in the meeting that we had last week. Absolutely, early identification is key, and we have been looking very carefully at that and at teaching training in the implementation plan that I will be setting out shortly.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
On new year’s eve, the care community lost a highly respected dear friend and true advocate. Ian Dickson spent his entire life making a difference to children in care and urging Governments to listen to them. The care review does not have all the answers, so will the Minister please implement the recommendations of the pioneering care experienced conference, in which Ian played a leading role?
Claire Coutinho
I pay tribute to Ian’s work. I would love to look at that in more detail and speak to the hon. Lady further about what we can take forward.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
We all visit many schools, and the latest for me was Chilton Academy where I talked about its Go Well support. We all talk about funding, but the biggest thing about funding is not just the amount, but its visibility and extended timelines. Can the Minister please explain what can be done to make sure that the schools know earlier and for longer what money they will have available?
Nick Gibb
I understand and agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of certainty over funding. The dedicated school grant allocations for 2023-24 were published in December 2022, including indicative allocations for the mainstream schools’ additional grant, which will distribute the additional £2 billion of funding that was announced in the autumn statement.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
As we have heard, the additional £15 million hardship funding for students announced last week amounts to less than £10 per head—significantly less, according to my sums—while the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that students are £1,500 a year worse off. Today, the all-party parliamentary group for students is launching an inquiry into the impact of the cost of living crisis on students, inviting submissions from students, their unions and institutions across the UK. Will the Minister agree to meet us to consider the evidence we receive?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Robert Halfon)
Of course I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the £276 million, along with other measures the Government have introduced, including the energy rebate and other support that we try to give students who are facing cost of living challenges.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
In light of the Government’s new emphasis on numeracy in schools, may I make a plea that the Government do not forget about literacy in schools and in particular how we can continue to raise standards? My initiative “Get Witham Reading” has been running for 10 years now, and I urge colleagues on the Front Bench to come to Witham to see the scheme in action this year and see how it has raised standards in education.
Nick Gibb
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend, and I share her passion, so I would be delighted to come and see the scheme in place in her constituency. We take reading very seriously; we have risen from joint 10th to joint eighth in the progress in international reading literacy study league tables, and in those surveys it is the least able children who are improving fastest.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
James Kerfoot, the headteacher of Rudheath Senior Academy, which serves my constituents, has introduced free school meals for all pupils. Why does the Minister not do the same?
Nick Gibb
As I said, we are spending £1.6 billion each year on free school meals, which is targeted at the most disadvantaged children, but schools are able to use their pupil premium funding, which is worth £2.5 billion a year to schools, if they wish to extend the coverage of free school meals to more pupils. As I said earlier, we extended free school meals to all pupils in infant schools in an early decision of the Conservative-led coalition Government.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Children’s services in Norfolk have been judged as requiring improvement all the way back to 2008, so will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating executive director Sara Tough and all her staff, as well as Councillor John Fisher, on last week’s assessment that Norfolk’s children’s services are now good and well on their way to outstanding?
Claire Coutinho
I do indeed congratulate that team; that is quite a hard thing to do and it is brilliant that they have been able to get that recommendation.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Government take the safety of schools very seriously, as the Minister said in response to an earlier question, so will Ministers reconsider mandating the fitting of sprinklers in new-build schools to minimise the risk posed by fires to buildings, equipment, pupils’ school work and people?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Lady will know that there is revised guidance; the new buildings bulletin has been issued after wide consultation and makes some changes to requirements for when sprinklers are to be installed in schools, particularly when the risk factor of the students in the school is high—for example, for children with special educational needs or residential schools.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
When I met Jewish students studying in universities in my constituency, I was appalled to learn of the antisemitism they have to suffer, often on a daily basis. That was made worse by the recent report into the National Union of Students’ handling and challenging of antisemitism. In the month when we mark Holocaust Memorial Day, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s assessment of that NUS report.
Robert Halfon
I have been shocked and sobered by reading that report that the NUS was in essence a hostile place for Jewish students. That is not acceptable. The National Union of Students, the main body for students, should be a place that is not just safe but welcoming for Jewish students. The proof of the pudding with this report will be in the eating; I expect to see the changes and the recommendations implemented in full, and once that has occurred I will re-engage with the National Union of Students.
The Execution of Alireza Akbari
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the execution of a British national in Iran.
On Saturday morning, Iran’s regime announced that it had executed Alireza Akbari, a British-Iranian dual national. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with his wife and two daughters at the time of their loss. They have shared his ordeal—an ordeal that began just over three years ago when he was lured back to Iran. He was detained and then subjected to the notorious and arbitrary legal process of the regime. Before his death, Mr Akbari described what was done to him and how torture had been used. Let there be no doubt: he fell victim to the political vendettas of a vicious regime. His execution was the cowardly and shameful act of a leadership that thinks nothing of using the death penalty as a political tool to silence dissent and settle internal scores.
In February last year, Mr Akbari’s family asked the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for our support, and we have worked closely with them ever since. I want to pay tribute to them for their courage and fortitude throughout this terrible period. In line with their wishes, the Minister of State, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad, lobbied Iran’s most senior diplomat in the UK as soon as we learned that Mr Akbari’s execution was imminent. We maintained the pressure right up until the point of his execution, but, sadly, to no avail.
When we heard the tragic news on Saturday morning, we acted immediately to demonstrate our revulsion. I ordered the summoning of Iran’s chargé d’affaires to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to make clear our strength of feeling. Our ambassador in Tehran delivered the same message to a senior Foreign Ministry official. Ten other countries have publicly condemned the execution, including France, Germany and the United States, and the European Union has done the same. I am grateful for their support at this time.
We then imposed sanctions on Iran’s Prosecutor General, Mohammad Jafar Montazeri, who bears heavy responsibility for the use of the death penalty for political ends. His designation is the latest of more than 40 sanctions imposed by the UK on the Iranian regime since October, including on six individuals linked to the revolutionary courts, which have passed egregious sentences against protesters, including the death penalty. In addition, I have temporarily recalled from Tehran His Majesty’s ambassador, Simon Shercliff, for consultations, and we met and discussed this earlier today. Now we shall consider what further steps we take alongside our allies to counter the escalating threat from Iran. We do not limit ourselves to the steps that I have already announced.
Mr Akbari’s execution follows decades of pitiless repression by a ruthless regime. Britain stands with the brave and dignified people of Iran as they demand their rights and freedoms. Just how much courage that takes is shown by the appalling fact that more than 500 people have been killed and 18,000 arrested during the recent wave of protests. Instead of listening to the calls for change from within Iran, the regime has resorted to its usual tactic of blaming outsiders and lashing out against its supposed enemies, including by detaining a growing number of foreign nationals for political gain. Today, many European nationals are being held in Iranian prisons on spurious charges, including British dual nationals, and I pay tribute to our staff—both in Tehran and here in the UK—who continue to work tirelessly on their behalf.
Beyond its borders, the regime has supplied Russia with hundreds of armed drones used to kill civilians in Ukraine. Across the middle east, Iran continues to inflict bloodshed and destruction by supporting extremist militias. And all the while, the steady expansion of the Iranian nuclear programme is threatening international peace and security and the entire system of global non-proliferation. In the last three months alone, Britain has imposed five separate packages of sanctions on Iran, and today we enforce designations against more than 300 Iranian individuals and entities. We have condemned the regime in every possible international forum, securing Iran’s removal from the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women and, alongside our partners, creating a new UN mechanism to investigate the regime’s human rights violations during the recent protests.
The House should be in no doubt that we are witnessing the vengeful actions of a weakened and isolated regime obsessed with suppressing its own people, debilitated by its fear of losing power, and wrecking its international reputation. Our message to that regime is clear: the world is watching you and you will be held to account, particularly by the brave Iranian people, so many of whom you are oppressing and killing. I commend this statement to the House.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I am responding on behalf of the Opposition as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is on a visit to Northern Ireland and so is unable to be here.
The execution of Alireza Akbari is the most horrendous human rights abuse—a barbaric act of politically motivated murder at the hands of the Iranian regime. The whole House’s condolences and solidarity are with his family at this time of unimaginable grief.
That the Iranian regime chose to take Mr Akbari’s life to make a political point to the British Government is a disgrace. The death penalty should never be used for any crime, but we must call these executions in Iran what they are: a gross attempt to silence a protest movement by striking fear into the hearts of ordinary Iranian people. In Mr Akbari’s case, his execution is a direct message to the British Government. Such executions are, in the words of Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, state-sanctioned killings.
Mr Akbari returned to Iran after a successful career in business in the UK to advise the Government on the nuclear deal between the west and Iran. He wanted to see a successful deal to end the western sanctions on the country.
We have discussed many times in this House the importance of a strong response to this brutal regime. The Government must now proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, either through the existing process or by amending the National Security Bill to create a new process of proscription for hostile state actors. The playbook of the regime is to use brutality and violence for its own political ends and its own survival. In his most recent threat update, MI5 director Ken McCallum referred to 10 kidnap and death plots by the Iranian regime on British soil. When an organisation threatens the lives of British journalists and British Iranian activists in the UK, that organisation is a terrorist organisation.
When will the Foreign Secretary proscribe this heinous organisation, and what action will he take to protect the lives of British Iranians in the UK and in Iran? I heard what he said about the condemnation internationally, but what further conversations has he had with international partners to ensure a co-ordinated response to condemn and curtail the regime’s appalling attack on the lives and human rights of its own people?
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the solidarity that the whole House sends to the family of Mr Akbari. He will know that the future proscription or sanctions designation of individuals or entities is not something that we speculate about or discuss at the Dispatch Box. However, he should know that we share the revulsion that he expressed.
As I said, we do not limit ourselves to the actions that we have already announced. I have spoken with His Majesty’s ambassador to Tehran and I will of course be speaking with other parts of Government about what further action we can take in response to the vile behaviour of the regime. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we speak regularly with our international friends on our collective response to Iran, both in the region and beyond, and we will continue to do so.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The thoughts of the entire Committee are with Mr Akbari’s family.
From hostage taking to terrorist plots, assassinations, nuclear extortion and destabilisation of the middle east and Europe, Iran is a terrorist state and it has weaponised human life. This is the first murder of a dual national since the 1980s. It is a clear escalation.
I make four asks. First, the House is clear that we need to proscribe the IRGC. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that he recognises that that is a policy decision, not a legal one? Secondly, we need to close down the IRGC’s operating centres within the UK, such as the one in Maida Vale. These are centres for spreading hostile influence within the UK. Can the Secretary of State also confirm that he will consider reactive sanctions to help the ordinary Iranians for whom no one else will stand up? After every state murder, we should impose sanctions to show we will give their voice some support. Finally, can he reassure me that he is confident of the safety of our staff in Tehran? I remember the stories of my colleagues who were under siege by the Iranian state in the past, and I am gravely concerned about their safety at this time.
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee raises incredibly important points. She knows the long-standing convention about speculating about sanctions and proscriptions, but I absolutely take the points that she has made about ensuring that the response we take here in the UK and, indeed, in conjunction with our international partners sends an incredibly clear message to the regime that these actions are unacceptable and will be responded to each and every time they take place. With regard to the actions that we take domestically here in the UK, I can assure her that we work closely with our Home Office colleagues on our collective response, and I agree with her that the safety of our team in Tehran is incredibly important. I pay tribute to them for the work that they do in incredibly challenging circumstances, and I also pay tribute to the demonstrations of international solidarity that we regularly receive from other platforms in Tehran.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
May I also thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement? The SNP utterly condemns the execution of Alireza Akbari in the strongest possible terms, and we extend our heartfelt condolences to his family. Once again, this execution highlights the serious injustice and failings of the Iranian judicial system. The Foreign Secretary’s decision to sanction Iran’s prosecutor is welcome, but as we have been calling for many times, I urge the Foreign Secretary again to go further and to take forward the formal proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. I ask him again: will he commit to that?
We remain deeply concerned about the safety of other arbitrarily detained UK-Iranian nationals. Morad Tahbaz has been held for five years. Mehran Raoof has been held since 2020. Their families just want to see them come home safely. What are the Government doing to make that a reality? Does the Secretary of State know just how many dual UK-Iranian nationals are detained in Iran, and can he tell us that number?
The Foreign Office cannot make the same mistakes it has made in the past with other dual nationals, such as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, Anoosheh Ashoori and other UK-Iranian nationals detained and, as we have heard, sometimes tortured. This shameful execution should serve as an urgent wake-up call. These people and their families deserve better. What lessons have this Government learned, and what are they going to do differently in future to support these people?
James Cleverly
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we work tirelessly to support the release of British dual nationals held in detention in Iran. Our consular team supports their families. The work that we, our ambassador and his team do in Tehran is incredibly important. Their presence is to ensure that British dual nationals, whether they have been in incarceration or not, are supported, and we will continue to work with our international friends and allies to secure the release of those individuals. In regard to proscription, he raises an important point. He will have heard the answers I have given to other colleagues—we do not limit ourselves to the responses we have already announced.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
It is a terrible day when we see the execution of a British subject. Some broadcast media have said that the decision by the Iranian regime to execute this individual came as a response to the repeated calls for proscription of the IRGC in a debate last week. Contrary to that, broadcast media not only showed an interview with his family, but also broadcast his comments about his torture by this vile regime. Does that show the Secretary of State, as it does me, the power of the media broadcast, but will he also ensure that the funding of BBC Persian radio will continue to ensure that the people of Iran can hear the truth and one day oversee the downfall of this vile regime?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point about our ability to project our values into Iran. The fact that millions of Iranians are protesting against their own Government shows that many people in Iran share our values and are deeply opposed to the regime that oppresses them. I have spoken to BBC senior leadership about the funding of our foreign language BBC World Service broadcasts, including the Persian broadcast. I assure him that whether through the BBC World Service or the work of our embassy by the ambassador and his team, we will continue to project our values into Iran and hopefully reinforce, and indeed show solidarity with, those brave Iranians protesting against their own regime.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Mr Akbari was my constituent and I offer my sympathies to his family here and abroad. I have represented their interests for the past year and I have had extensive contact with them over the past few difficult days. Their strength and courage have been extraordinary in the face of the brutality and cruelty of the Iranian regime.
Earlier today, I spoke to Mr Akbari’s daughter in the UK and she asked me to raise a further distressing matter with the Foreign Secretary. The regime refuses to release Mr Akbari’s body or to allow burial in the place chosen by him, and has made threats to destroy his body unless the family co-operate with its instructions. The cemetery where the family were told he should be buried informed them that burial had already taken place last week, which casts doubt on the time of his execution. Will the Foreign Secretary meet me and the family in the UK and do what the Government can to ensure that in death, if not in life, Mr Akbari is treated with dignity and respect?
James Cleverly
The points that the hon. Gentleman just raised fill us all, I am sure, with revulsion; we will continue to support the family in whatever way we can. He is absolutely right to call on the regime to treat Mr Akbari in death with the deference and respect that is legitimate. I will follow up on his points with our ambassador and communicate our incredible discomfort with those points, and as I say, we will continue to support the family in whatever way we can.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke eloquently about the brutal hostility that the regime in Tehran is visiting on not only on its own citizens, but Ukraine through its support for Russia, on neighbouring countries in the middle east, and, of course, on a UK passport holder through his execution. Does that not now mean that we should proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and review the UK’s involvement in the Iran nuclear agreement?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend raises incredibly important points. We will continue to work with our friends and allies to ensure that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. With regard to our further action, we do not limit ourselves to the announcements that we have just made. Part of the reason why I have temporarily recalled His Majesty’s ambassador to Tehran is so that we can discuss cross-Government what our further response might be.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Mr Akbari’s judicial murder is particularly poignant for us because he was a dual national, but all the murders that have been committed by the Iranian Government over the last few days and weeks prove that they give a new meaning to the term “criminal justice system”—more criminal than justice. I worry, however, that the Secretary of State is always reluctant to talk about further sanctions. Government Ministers invented the rule that they are not allowed to talk about them at the Dispatch Box because it is a bit inconvenient for them, but is it not time that we had a proper parliamentary process for determining some sanctions? Frankly, if it was up to the Foreign Affairs Committee, or I suspect the House, we would have taken action six months ago and we would not still be hanging around.
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman speaks with great passion on this. I know that he takes a personal interest in the use of sanctions, and we have discussed this in my appearances before the Select Committee, but I think it is important that we maintain a clear distinction between the Executive functions and the scrutiny functions. Although I understand that there is a huge amount of embedded experience in the House, I think that the job of the Government is to govern and the job of this House is to scrutinise the Government, which is why that division of labour is important.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The execution of Alireza Akbari was a hideous act. It is clear that the Iranian regime will stop at nothing in its desire to repress its people, whether that is through the arrest, torture or, indeed, murder of innocent citizens, many of whom are women. Many colleagues across the House have called for the IRGC to be proscribed, and I would like to add my name to that list. I would also urge the Foreign Secretary to continue working with our allies to try to get a global consensus on the issue.
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend highlights something that we should all consider, which is that the actions of the Iranian regime are a display of weakness, not strength. The regime lives in fear of the voices of the Iranian people, which is why it is responding so brutally. My advice to the regime—it will not take it, I have no doubt—is to listen to its own people, and to stop blaming external actors for actions stimulated by its oppression of its people. I can assure my right hon. Friend that we will continue to work closely with our international friends and allies, so many of whom have expressed solidarity over the weekend in response to Mr Akbari’s execution.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The execution of Alireza Akbari is horrendous. If we ever wanted proof that we are dealing with barbarians, it is this and what has happened over the last few months. While the Foreign Secretary is considering proscription and the harshest possible sanctions—I would like to add the voices of the Liberal Democrats to that and offer our support—I urge him to consider another move. We have learned from the war in Ukraine that going after individuals and the spoils of their human rights abuses is also a very effective way of sanctioning. What consideration have the Government given to auditing the assets of those we have sanctioned, particularly the assets of family members who may be resident in the UK, and can he assure the House that not a single penny of their spoils is sloshing around the British economy?
James Cleverly
We will of course always examine ways of ensuring that our sanctions are most effective and have the deterrent effect as well as the punitive effect that they are designed to have. I can assure the hon. Lady that, as I have said, we will continue working internationally with our friends and allies who share our revulsion at the actions of the Iranian regime. She describes the regime as barbarian, and one of the great ironies is that Iran has a long history—a multi-millennial history—of sophistication and thoughtfulness. That history and reputation is being destroyed on a daily basis by the people currently holding the levers of power in Tehran, and I think that is a massive shame for the Iranian people more broadly.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I would like to thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and to express my sympathy to Mr Akbari’s family, who are going through such a terrible time. We should remember that Iran carries out the second highest number of executions anywhere in the world—second only to China—so this is not something isolated, but something the regime implements. I recommend that my right hon. Friend reads the Hansard report of the debate we had last Thursday, when more than 30 Members from across the House contributed excellent examples of what is happening in Iran. He can negotiate with our allies to impose sanctions against Iran totally, which will isolate the regime, and he can also talk to the Home Secretary about proscribing the IRGC, which is the settled view of this House. He has the support of the House on all sides and from all parties, which is surely enough to proscribe the IRGC in its entirety and to sequestrate its assets once and for all.
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the strong and clear stance that the House has taken in response to the brutality meted out by the Iranian regime. I assure him and the House that we will continue to work cross-Department, and internationally, on the most effective ways of curtailing Iran’s malign activity, both within Iran, in the region and globally.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I send my sincere condolences to the family and loved ones of Mr Akbari. The use of the death penalty is appalling under all circumstances, as are the practices of torture and prolonged solitary confinement, all of which Mr Akbari was subjected to while being held by the Iranian authorities. Amnesty has called for the UK Government to work with international bodies to fully investigate Mr Akbari’s allegations of torture and all other ill treatment, and to pursue the criminal investigation of officials reasonably suspected of involvement in crimes under international law. Will the Foreign Secretary today agree to take up those calls for justice?
James Cleverly
I assure the hon. Lady that we will not rest until this regime is held to account for the brutality and atrocities that it has meted out to its own people, and we will do so in close co-operation with our friends in the international community.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Southampton has a significant Anglo-Iranian community, many of whom have made the point to me that this is a regime that can maintain its position only through terror and torture. But they are scared. They are scared for their family members, for women, for dual nationals and for students. They want the proscription of the IRGC, and they want me to leave my right hon. Friend in no doubt that Anglo-Iranians in this country wish to see our Government do more.
James Cleverly
I assure my right hon. Friend that we will continue working cross-Department and across Whitehall to ensure that those Iranians who have chosen to make the UK their home, and Anglo-Iranians who live in the UK, feel safe. The first duty of Government is to protect the people within these shores, and I assure her that we take that responsibility incredibly seriously.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for what he has said about the brutal murder of Mr Akbari. The sad truth, however, is that the Iranian regime does such things because it can. There are voices that have called for the joint comprehensive plan of action process to be abandoned, and I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could tell the House what his current view is. I caution him, however, because in absence of that process, what other means would we have of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, which, given its current behaviour, is surely unthinkable?
James Cleverly
The right hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. We hear calls from Tehran for us to lift sanctions, and we remind them that the sanctions are imposed because of their behaviour, be that human rights violations, brutality against their own people, support for militias in the region, or attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon. We will continue to work closely with our international partners in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Negotiations on the JCPOA have not progressed, and the ball is very much in the court of the Iranians. I say strongly to them that the world will continue to work in concert and solidarity to prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and if they wish sanctions to be lifted, the regime has to fundamentally change its behaviour.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) was right to draw attention to the power of the media in exposing what is going on in Iran, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be aware of the continuing threats against journalists working for Iran International, whose headquarters in Chiswick is under permanent armed police guard. Will he make it clear to the Iranian regime that threats of that kind on British soil are utterly unacceptable? Will he consider extending the sanctions against anyone in the Iranian regime responsible for making threats against journalists?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend echoes the point that the Iranian regime is fearful of criticism, and particularly fearful of criticism from within Iran itself and from Iranians internationally. That is why it behaves so petulantly and aggressively towards journalists. We have an incredibly important responsibility to protect those journalists and support those dissenting voices. I assure him on behalf of my colleagues in the Home Office and the security services that we will continue to support the free expression of those brave Iranian voices criticising a regime that currently has a stranglehold around their country.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
My heart goes out to the family and friends of Mr Akbari. The Iranian regime is using the death penalty as a tool of political repression against courageous protesters. As we have heard, the IRGC also threaten the lives of journalists and British-Iranian activists here in the UK. Last week we saw cross-party support for proscribing the IRGC. I ask again—this time for the Secretary of State to answer—will the UK Government take action and urgently brand the IRGC as a terrorist organisation?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady is right to raise the need to respond to the actions taken by the Iranian regime. As I said, I announced an initial set of responses immediately after the execution of Mr Akbari. I am consulting with His Majesty’s ambassador in Tehran—I have done so today—and we will work across Government to ensure that our response to Iran is robust and deters further such actions.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent statement. Will he confirm that he will discuss the execution of Mr Akbari on his visit to Washington this week and assure us that with our allies he will seek to co-ordinate the strongest response to this latest state-sponsored torture and killing, as well as Iran’s escalating human rights abuses against women and the wider security threat?
James Cleverly
I assure my hon. Friend that I will address our response to the Iranian regime in general and the response to this execution in particular with both my American and Canadian counterparts when I visit those two countries later this week. I assure her, and indeed the House, that the messages of solidarity that we have received from our international partners reflect the strength of feeling that I hear in my conversations about the issue.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The vile Iranian regime are operating through proxies in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and I have been working closely with the police in respect of the Islamic community centre in Maida Vale, where the weekly counter-protests that now occur there are causing very real concern in that residential community. Will the Secretary of State tell us what investigations he is carrying out into the operation of those centres and how they can be managed to protect local communities, including the very diverse Muslim communities in that area?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady will understand that actions here in the UK are the responsibility of the Home Office, but I assure her that my Department and that Department work closely on such issues and will continue to do so.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
These are the words of Hassan Firouzi:
“Whether or not I sign confession papers, they will kill me. My only wish is to see my daughter one last time. After 10 years, God finally gave us a child. I only got to see her for 18 days before being arrested for protesting. I miss my daughter so much. My only wish is that I get to see my daughter one last time before they kill me.”
He is another citizen who has been condemned to death. I have adopted his case at the urging of a close Iranian friend in my constituency. Does the Foreign Secretary believe that it is helpful for Members of Parliament to adopt individual people on death row in Iran to publicise their cases and put maximum pressure on the regime?
James Cleverly
I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that particular case. I know the Iranian regime hates it when its actions are called out on the international stage. I have made it clear to the Iranians that if they want the criticism to stop, their behaviour must change. Their behaviour at the moment deserves criticism in this Chamber and internationally. I commend all colleagues, where they have the opportunity to do so, to raise cases and demonstrate to the brave Iranians who are standing up against the brutality of their own Government that we show solidarity with them.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I add my condolences to the family of Mr Akbari at this very sad time. I cannot see why the Secretary of State is delaying proscribing the regime in Iran and call on him to do so immediately. In my human rights city of York, we have serious concern about the use of the death penalty. There are over 20,000 people on death row across over 55 jurisdictions right now. Will he lead a discussion in the UN to bring the use of state-authorised death to an end across the world? When it is condoned in one country, it gives Iran more liberty to apply it in its own.
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady will, I am sure, know that the UK opposes the death penalty in all respects. We have communicated that internationally and we have communicated that to the Iranian regime. Our position is long standing, it is principled and it will not change. We will highlight our opposition to the death penalty whenever we have the opportunity to do so.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I know that Lord Ahmad will have done everything in his power to stop this despicable act. I condemn the execution of Mr Akbari, a British-Iranian dual national, and I want to place on record my condolences to his wife and two daughters. Does the Foreign Secretary have concerns that ending the talks on the nuclear deal in the face of ongoing turmoil in the country could see Iran speed up its uranium enrichment programme or pull out of the treaty altogether?
James Cleverly
The international community, the signatories to the JCPOA, have given the opportunity to the Iranian regime to make changes. It has thus far failed to grasp the opportunity presented to it. We will continue working to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but the ball, ultimately, is in its court. If it wants sanctions lifted, it has to change—fundamentally change—its behaviour.
Ukraine: Update
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Mr Speaker, may I start by apologising for the way the information contained in the statement has come out in the media? It does not do me any favours and nor does it make my job any easier. I apologise to Mr Speaker and to the House. It is certainly not my doing and it does not help us in furthering the policy.
It has been a month since I last updated the House on the situation in Ukraine. Over the last four weeks, extremely heavy and attritional fighting has continued, especially around the Donetsk oblast town of Bakhmut and in the less reported on sector of Kreminna in Luhansk. Over Christmas, Russia continued its assault on Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure, but no matter how cruel, or how much loss of life accompanies it, Russia has singularly failed to break the will of the Ukrainian people or change the policy of its leaders.
We continue to closely monitor how Russia’s long-range strike campaign will evolve as it eats deeper into the strategic reserves of its own modern missiles. It is notable that Russia is now using the forced labour of convicts to manufacture weaponry. Ukraine, however, continues to use its internationally provided long-range artillery to successful effect.
Throughout the war, Russia has managed to lose significant numbers of generals and commanding officers, but last week’s announcement that its commander in Ukraine, General Sergey Surovikin, had been unceremoniously bypassed, with the chief of the general staff, General Gerasimov, personally taking over field command, is certainly significant. It is the visible tip of an iceberg of factionalism within the Russian command. Putin apparently remains bullish, and with Gerasimov’s deference to the President never in doubt, we would now expect a trend back towards a Russian offensive, no matter how much loss of life accompanies it.
In 2023, there is no loss of momentum from the international community—quite the opposite. President Putin believed that the west would get tired, get bored and fragment. Ukraine is continuing to fight, and far from fragmenting, the west is accelerating its efforts. The United States has invested approximately $24.2 billion in support for Ukraine since the beginning of Russia’s invasion on 24 February last year. It has delivered thousands of anti-aircraft and anti-armour systems and has recently stepped up that support, delivering Patriot air defence battery and munitions and 45 refurbished T-72 Bravo tanks, as well as donating 50 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles to assist with the counter-offensive. We also welcome the decision of the French Government to provide Ukraine with the AMX-10 light, highly mobile tank, which has been used very recently in reconnaissance missions by the French army and was deployed as recently as the Barkhane mission in west Africa.
Important as those contributions are in and of themselves, what matters more is that they represent part of an international effort that collectively conveys a force multiplier effect. None of this is happening unilaterally; no one is doing this on their own. I shall soon be announcing the first round of bids to the jointly Danish and UK-chaired international fund for Ukraine. I am grateful to Sweden for adding, over the festive period, to the pot of money donated. Those who have donated to the fund now include Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Iceland and others.
Meanwhile, Russia, isolated and without such support, has now lost more than 1,600 main battle tanks in Ukraine since the start of the invasion. However, if we are to continue helping Ukraine to seize the upper hand in the next phase of the conflict, we must accelerate our collective efforts diplomatically, economically and militarily to keep the pressure on Putin.
In December, I told the House that I was
“developing options to respond”
to Russia’s continued aggression
“in a calibrated and determined manner”.—[Official Report, 20 December 2022; Vol. 725, c. 157.]
Today, I can announce the most significant package of combat power to date, to accelerate Ukrainian success. It includes a squadron of Challenger 2 tanks, with armoured recovery and repair vehicles. We will donate AS-90 guns to Ukraine; this donation, which comprises a battery of eight guns at high readiness and two further batteries at varying states of readiness, will not impact on our existing AS-90 commitment in Estonia. Hundreds more armoured and protected vehicles will also be sent, including Bulldog. There will be a manoeuvre support package, including minefield breaching and bridging capabilities worth £28 million; dozens more uncrewed aerial systems worth £20 million to support Ukrainian artillery; another 100,000 artillery rounds, on top of the 100,000 rounds already delivered; hundreds more sophisticated missiles, including guided multiple-launch rocket system rockets, Starstreak air defence and medium-range air defence missiles; and an equipment support package of spares to refurbish up to 100 Ukrainian tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. While the tanks and the AS-90s will come from our stocks, along with their associated ammunition, a significant number of the other donations are being purchased on the open market or from supportive third-party countries.
Today’s package is an important increase to Ukraine’s capabilities. It means that it can go from resisting to expelling Russian forces from Ukrainian soil. President Putin cannot win, but he is equally certain that he can continue inflicting this wanton violence and human suffering until his forces are ejected from their defensive positions and expelled from the country. That requires a new level of support: the combat power only achieved by combinations of main battle tank squadrons, operating alongside divisional artillery groups, and further deep precision fires enabling the targeting of Russian logistics and command nodes at greater distance. We will be the first country to donate western main battle tanks, and we will be bringing a further squadron of our own Challenger tanks to higher readiness in place of the squadron sent. Even as we gift Challenger 2 tanks, I shall at the same time be reviewing the number of Challenger 3 conversions, to consider whether the lessons of Ukraine suggest that we need a larger tank fleet.
We will also build apace on the Army’s modernisation programme. Specifically on artillery, I am accelerating the mobile fires programme so that, instead of delivering in the 2030s, it will do so during the current decade. I have also directed that, subject to commercial negotiation, an interim artillery capability is to be delivered. After discussion with the United States and our European allies, it is hoped that the example set by the French and us will allow the countries holding Leopard tanks to donate as well, and I know that a number of countries want to do the same. As I have said, no one is going it alone.
It is worth reiterating why we are doing this. In 2023, the international community will not let Russia wait us out while inflicting terrible suffering on Ukrainian civilians. The international community recognises that equipping Ukraine to push Russia out of its territory is as important as equipping it to defend what it already has. This week dozens of nations will meet in Ramstein, Germany, to progress further donations and international co-ordination. The Kremlin will be in no doubt that we are resolved to stand by Ukraine in her fight.
Doubling down on the success of our basic training of Ukrainian military personnel in the United Kingdom in 2022, we are increasing the number this year to a further 20,000. Canada, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Lithuania, New Zealand and the Netherlands have already joined this effort, and I am pleased to say that we are to be joined by a group of Australian military to train in the UK as well—leaving their summer to join our winter, brave souls.
Our decision today is a calibrated response to Russia’s growing aggression and indiscriminate bombing. The Kremlin must recognise that it is Russia’s behaviour that is solidifying the international resolve, and that despite the propaganda, Ukraine and her partners are focused on the defence of Ukraine. None of the international support is an attack on Russia, or NATO-orchestrated aggression, let alone a proxy war. At its heart, it is about helping Ukraine to defend itself, upholding international law and restoring its own sovereignty. We believe that in 2023, increased supplies, improved training and strengthening diplomatic resolve will enable Ukraine to be successful against Russia’s poorly led and now badly equipped armed forces.
From the outset, President Putin believed that his forces would be welcomed with open arms, that Ukrainians would not fight, and that western support would crumble. He has been proved wrong on all counts. Today’s package will help to accelerate the conclusion of Putin’s occupation and all its brutality, and ensure that in 2023, and beyond if necessary, Ukraine will maintain its momentum, supported by an international community that is more than ever determined that Putin’s illegal and unprovoked invasion will fail.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement, and thank him for advance sight of it. Mr Speaker, 2023 will indeed be the decisive year in this war in Ukraine, and the most decisive moment is now, when Ukraine has the tactical and morale advantage over Russia; now, when Ukraine needs more combined military firepower to break the battlefield deadlock. As the Secretary-General of NATO said yesterday,
“it is important that we provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs to win”.
That is why this first package of military assistance for 2023—with tanks, artillery, infantry vehicles, ammunition and missiles—has Labour’s fullest support.
Challenger 2 is a world-class tank that can help Ukraine retake lost ground and limit the cost in Ukrainian lives. We are now sending 14. How many tanks does Ukraine need for a successful counter-offensive? Are the 14 Challengers currently in active service or in storage? When will they be delivered into the field in Ukraine? What combat engineering vehicles will be delivered to support those tanks? Will any UK forces personnel be deployed into Ukraine with those vehicles?
The integrated review cut Challenger tanks from 227 to 148. I welcome the Defence Secretary’s review of Challenger 3 numbers. When will he announce the results of the review? Is he reviewing other Army cuts? The Armed Forces Minister told me in a parliamentary answer last week that Challenger 2 training takes 33 days for gunners, 46 days for drivers and 85 days for crew commanders. The Defence Secretary made no mention of Challenger training. Will the UK provide training alongside the tanks? How long will the training be for Ukrainian troops?
President Zelensky has confirmed the wider importance of this UK military package. At the weekend he said:
“that will not only strengthen us on the battlefield, but also send the right signal to other partners.”
The Defence Secretary today said that hopes that this UK military aid will help to unlock more co-ordinated support from other nations. Like him, I welcome similar moves already announced by other NATO nations in recent days, particularly the US and France. How many of the 14 Leopard-using nations may provide those tanks to Ukraine? What more does he expect from allies at the Ramstein meeting on Friday? It has been five months since he announced the international fund. When will allocations be made?
The Prime Minster talked at the weekend about a surge in global military support for Ukraine. How will the Defence Secretary ensure a continuing surge in UK military support? What more can Ukraine expect from the UK? You know, Mr Speaker, as does the Defence Secretary, that I have argued for months that Ministers must move beyond ad hoc announcements and set out a full 2023 action plan for military, economic and diplomatic support—a case that the Defence Ministry has fully accepted. That will help to give Ukraine confidence for future supplies. It will help to gear up our own industry. It will encourage allies to do more and it will make clear that things will get worse, not better for Russia.
One of the clear lessons from the last year in Ukraine is that nations need large reserve stocks of certain weapons and ammunition, or the ability to produce them quickly. The UK has neither. We are still moving too slowly to replace the weapons donated to Ukraine or to find new wartime ways of making weapons more rapidly and cheaply. There was no mention in the Secretary of State’s statement about replenishing UK stockpiles or a new industry plan. Can he update the House on the action he is taking?
Finally and importantly, he said that today’s military package means that Ukraine can go from resisting to expelling Russian forces from Ukrainian soil. Will he confirm that this is the UK’s strategic aim for Ukraine?
Mr Wallace
If you would indulge me, Mr Speaker, there were lots of questions and I will do my best to answer them all. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and his party for their support, which, as he said, has been ongoing and enduring throughout this process. That is what allows the UK to be prominent in standing tall for international human rights and defending Ukraine.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what scale of support Ukraine will need; I cannot be too specific, as I do not want to set out to the Russian Government the exact inadequacies or strengths of the Ukrainian armed forces. However, it is safe to say that the Ukrainians will require an ongoing commitment that grows to the size of divisions in its armed forces. Also, in the last year we have seen Ukraine grow its own army, to hundreds of thousands of men and women under arms, who are now equipped not only with western equipment but with captured or refurbished former Soviet or Russian equipment. The Polish Government have donated more than 200 T-72 tanks, for example.
The key for all of us in the next phase is to help Ukraine to train and to combine all those weapons systems in a way that can deliver a combined arms effect in a mobile manner to deliver the offensives required to achieve the goal of expelling, which the right hon. Gentleman also asked about. It is the UK Government’s position that Putin’s invasion fails and Ukraine restores its sovereign territory, and we will do all we can to help achieve that. This package is part of that. The Challengers should be viewed alongside the 50 Bradleys from the United States. Those are effectively the ingredients for a battlegroup with divisional level fires of either AS-90s or other 155 howitzers. The 14 tanks represent a squadron, and the 50 Bradleys would roughly form an armoured infantry battlegroup.
We are trying to take the Ukrainian military, with its history of Soviet methods, and provide it not only with western equipment but with western know-how. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, the training will be delivered almost immediately, starting with Ukrainians training in the UK and in the field, so to speak, either in neighbouring countries or in countries such as Germany, where we saw the artillery train with the Dutch, I think, at the beginning of this process. The training of these Ukrainian forces will be administered and supported in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, with the US being in the lead for much of that formation training. It is incredibly important and supportive of the United States to do that.
There will be no UK forces deployed in Ukraine in this process. As I have said, that is because our job is to help Ukraine to defend itself and we can do that from neighbouring or other countries. Yes, I know the training cycle. I was a trooper in the Scots Dragoon Guards in 1988 and I started my time in a Chieftain tank, which you would be lucky to see in a museum these days. The Ukrainians have shown us, in their basic and specialist training, that they are determined to go back and fight for their country, and their work ethos and the hours they put in are quite extraordinary. I am confident that, on one level, they will soon be showing us the way to fight with this equipment.
The right hon. Gentleman referenced the Army cuts. I have come to this Dispatch Box on numerous occasions and admitted how woeful our Army’s equipment programmes have been in the past and how behind and out of date they have been. That is why we have committed investment of more than £24 billion in Army equipment alone over the next 10 years. As I have said, I am bringing forward Deep Fire and Recce and getting Ajax back on track, as well as our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability, the Challenger 3 tanks, the Boxer fleet, plus many other investments in the Army. This is incredibly important. I take it seriously and I know that the right hon. Gentleman does too. We have to deliver an Army that can stand shoulder to shoulder with its peers, never mind its enemy, and it is important to say so.
On the Leopard coalition, as it is calling itself, it is being reported that Poland is keen to donate some Leopard tanks, as is Finland. All of this currently relies on the German Government’s decisions, not only on whether they will supply their own Leopards but whether they will give permissions for others to do so. I would urge my German colleagues to do that. These tanks are not offensive when they are used for defensive methods. There is a debate in Germany about whether a tank is an offensive or defensive weapon. It depends what people are using it for. I would wager that if they are using it to defend their country, it is a defensive weapon.
Also, we are not on our own. This is a joint international coalition. I know that there have been concerns in the German political body that it does not want to go it alone. Well, it is not alone, and I think that the conference in Ramstein will show that. I pay tribute to the commitment by the French to put in the tanks at Christmas time, and we are obviously joining alongside them. They are the key to unlocking the Leopard, and we will do all we can to help that.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question on the international fund is imminently: I will announce it in the next couple of weeks. We had $27 billion-worth of bids to a fund that has reached $500 million. I am very grateful for the recent Swedish donation to the fund, which we intend to keep growing, but I want to make sure that the fund is spent sustainably. It is not a petty cash or slush fund though which people can just go and buy something. I want it to be invested in things such as production and supply chains. Whether it is maintaining tanks or artillery supplies, an active production line is needed.
That goes to the right hon. Gentleman’s last point about being too slow to place orders. One of the reasons it has taken time to place orders, as he knows, is that there is sometimes no supply chain and we have to wait for a supply chain to be reinvested in, redeveloped or re-founded with new suppliers before we can get a price for the taxpayer or a contract delivered. That is what happened with NLAW. As much as we would have loved to have placed that order on the next day, some of the supply chain was 15 years old and we had to find new suppliers. Then we got a price and some partners. By placing an order with Sweden, we reinvigorated the supply chain and, hopefully, more jobs with it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chairman of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
This conflict will not end any time soon. Putin is moving his country to a war footing as he prepares for a spring offensive. Tactically speaking, it is very welcome that we are finally seeing some serious, NATO-standard tracked hardware gifted to Ukraine. It is another example of the UK leading and ever pushing the envelope of international support for Ukraine.
As other nations follow our lead, maintaining so many NATO variants of vehicles and equipment—tanks, armoured personnel carriers and artillery pieces—will not be practical in the long term. Will the UK consider leading again by establishing a western-funded, Ukrainian-operated weapons factory and assembly line in eastern Poland so that Ukraine can become self-sufficient in procuring and replenishing the military kit and munitions it needs for its long-term security, without fear of the facility being targeted by Russia?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend’s suggestion is correct. He is right to say that, unless there is a supply chain or, indeed, a sustainability package behind all this gifting, these vehicles and artillery pieces will become junk on the battlefield when they run out or wear out, so it is important that we think in that way. That is why we will be putting in some recovery vehicles with the Challenger 2 donations. There is a lot of thought going on right now about the sustainability of supply chains, which ties into the international fund, as I am looking for intelligent application of the fund to stimulate just that.
Ukraine has shown itself to be incredibly successful either at reverse-engineering what it captures from Russia or at designing and developing its own equipment. It recently opened a production line for 155 mm or 152 mm shells, and it is now manufacturing within the country. We will get to where my right hon. Friend wants to be by using the international fund or Kindred to fund supply chains over the border. If Ukraine approaches us with ideas for transferring intellectual property so that we can make equipment for Ukraine, or so that Ukraine can make the equipment here or anywhere else, I would be very open to doing that.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I welcome the detail and the substance of the Secretary of State’s statement. Moreover, I believe the timing is very welcome as we close in on the first anniversary of the outrageous attack on Ukraine by Putin and his forces last February.
All of us, regardless of our political allegiances or differences in other areas, must stand up for the international rules-based system, the right of sovereignty and the value of self-determination where they are under attack, not simply at the outset of conflict, when hackles are raised and outrage piqued, but as we endure almost a year of the conflict’s effects on these shores, in our homes and on our industry and wider resources, and as we continue to witness Russia’s hybrid terror heaped upon the people of Ukraine. Now is the time to double down on the west’s support and commitment to Ukraine in defending itself against this aggression. It is time to leave Putin in no doubt that the west’s resolve, politically and in every other respect, is there for Ukraine to see.
I would like to know three things. The Secretary of State said on 12 December that he would not pursue sending redundant UK Warrior infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine because they are tracked vehicles weighing 28 tonnes and because of the logistical tail that comes with them. So what has changed in a month to allow him to now send a squadron of 68-tonne Challenger tanks, with the very much more complex logistics and support burden that go along with them? Can he also set out the duration of the period between this announcement and those Challengers 2s having operational effect within the Ukraine battlespace? And given that European NATO nations must doubtless follow this development with similar donations of Leopard 2 tanks, is he prepared to review not just the number of Challenger 3s, but whether the Challenger 3 will be the right solution for the UK going forward at all? When we see the Challengers and Leopard 2s going toe to toe with the same peer adversary, we will see much more clearly which is the better tank.
Mr Wallace
I am always happy to keep under review the number of tanks and what we have. One lesson of Ukraine, however, is that, whether it is a modern or not-so-modern tank, unless it is properly protected and supported, by counter-drone capability, electronic warfare or a proper wrap, it can become incredibly vulnerable, going from being the lion on the savannah to being a very vulnerable thing. When we look at the finite amount of money we all have in government, how much do we commit to make a perfectly formed battle group, or how much do we take a risk? The Russians took a risk on the road to Kyiv and that is where we are.
The Warrior and the Challenger are obviously different vehicles, but as I referenced earlier the 50 Bradleys—the United States vehicles—are probably in better condition than our Warriors and these Challengers are designed to complement those. Hopefully, we will be training together, with the Challenger and the Bradley interoperating. In addition, there are issues with the Warrior fleet. Obviously, I am happy to constantly look at that and I will not rule it out but, for now, on taking 12 tanks as opposed to what would probably have to be 40-odd Warriors to make it a company-sized level, I would prefer to focus on the AS-90s and the Challenger tanks to make that difference.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend. Along with the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), I had the privilege just before Christmas of working south of Kharkiv with a British charity, Siobhan’s Trust, feeding thousands of dispossessed Ukrainians. While there, I was able to talk to a lot of the Ukrainian military. I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend, because the one thing they were saying was that they were very disappointed by Germany’s failure to give permission for the Leopard tanks to be sent to them as originally arranged. They now believe that this decision by His Majesty’s Government will help unlock that.
I visited the military hospital in Kharkiv, which is shelled two or three times a week—the devastation is appalling—and people there asked me for some things that are not offensive things. First, they desperately need more armoured ambulances because they say that the experience of getting the wounded quickly to the hospitals is terrible. Secondly, they have a great shortage of paramedics; they need those very much, too. Thirdly—this is shocking—the number of Ukrainian military committing suicide as a result of battlefield stress is astonishing and help is desperately needed. They said that the US and the UK, who have experience in Afghanistan, Iraq and so on, could really help by sending some people over to help train in those mental health practices.
Mr Wallace
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. I would be fascinated to follow up with him on his experience with Siobhan’s Trust. It is easy to forget that lots and lots of Ukrainians are suffering post conflict, whether we are talking about members of the military committing suicide, or ordinary individuals. The tragedy is that, nine or 10 months in, people get slightly immune to what they see in the media, on the telly and on social media, which is violence and destruction on a staggering scale. The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), has just said to me that the surgeon general is going to visit soon to see what more we can do to help those individuals, especially those suffering from acute mental challenges.
On armoured ambulances, I know that there have been some donations already, some of which have been private donations. A colleague of ours in this House from Yorkshire approached me about a company that donated some armoured ambulances. I notice in the announcement that we have sent some Bulldogs—for people as old as me they are called 432s. I believe we gave them a new coat of paint and called them Bulldogs. Fundamentally, they have ambulance variants, so I will see whether they are included in that. I can write to my right hon. Friend with details of the medical support.
On the Germans, we should not forget that they have made huge donations. While it is probably the best sport of the media of the day in the UK to always pursue them, they have, like us, delivered M270 GMLRSs. They are one of the biggest contributors to the Ukraine fight and we should give credit where credit is due. I am grateful for what they are doing. I just hope that on the Leopards they will unlock and that, if they do not do so, other nations will.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for what he is doing and for the support that he is giving to Ukraine. Basically, we have to do what it takes to ensure that Ukraine wins this war and that Putin understands that there will be no weakening on the western side in support of Ukraine. But it is a war of attrition at the moment and it is very important that it is clear that the support we will be giving Ukraine will be ongoing and done in a strategic way. Although I welcome the supply of the Challenger tanks, they were needed many months ago. We seem to be giving bits of help to Ukraine in a piecemeal way. I am not in any way undermining the amount that has been given so far, but a much more strategic approach is needed to ramp up production in the west as a whole in terms of support and to replenish our own supplies, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said.
The Secretary of State did not mention Belarus. With reports coming through today of Belarus doing joint training exercises with the Russians, are we giving a clear message to Belarus that there will be serious consequences if there is any infringement on Ukrainian soil from Belarus?
Mr Wallace
On Belarus, it has been interesting that it seems Putin’s most loyal ally has still not committed his forces. That speaks volumes. I think the neighbours are sensing quite how weak Putin in one sense has become. When the bully is no longer able to bully in the playground, we start to see consequences in Kazakhstan and elsewhere. We have seen the Russians move units to Belarus and then back out again. We saw them recently carrying out training in those units, which is, I think, what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Absolutely, we engage with Belarus. I think Belarus understands what further action would mean to its status in relation to Russia and, indeed, Ukraine. Ukraine does speak to Belarus, as does President Putin. No good would come of the addition of Belarus.
On the piecemeal claim, I understand that, but I mention the calibration that we are trying to achieve with what we are doing now. It is important that we do it as a coalition—together. The amazing thing about the support for Ukraine is that it includes a huge amount of bilateral arrangements. It is not, as Russia would like to accuse us of, a NATO-orchestrated event. It is not a proxy war. It is not an attack on Russia or Russia-phobia. Fundamentally, it is like-minded countries recognising the wrong that has gone on in that country and through the invasion and coming together. Russia would like us to believe all those other narratives—it is not about those. It is about defending a country to defend itself. What is great is how many countries around the world agree with upholding human rights and international law and want to come together to help.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement this afternoon, not least as the Ukrainians are now clearly fighting for our freedom as well as for their own. After what one might call a bruising encounter battle last week between departmental witnesses and the Defence Committee over the achingly slow re-equipment of our own British Army, I welcome the Secretary of State’s sense of urgency on that, too, but could he specifically declare some of our armoured fighting vehicle programmes, such as Boxer, the Challenger 3 upgrade and the Mobile Fires Platform, as urgent operational requirements? That would mean that we effectively cut all the usual procurement bureaucracy and bring those vital systems into service as soon as possible.
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend is as keen as I am to change the history on procurement. It is remarkable, when it comes to assisting Ukraine, how speedily we can get things into the field or adapt them, and how manufacturers seem magically to adapt things. There are lessons there. I had already started the process of accelerating the Challenger 3 programme last year—I did not want to take the gap in the middle of the decade —but of course, when we accelerate, we take risks. Nevertheless, I think that is important. I will definitely look at his suggestion, although the elephant in the room on the suggestion of accelerating procurement is His Majesty’s Treasury, which would have to reprofile the budget. As the time of the integrated review approaches, I shall engage with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Night after night, the Russians continue to fire missiles at the Ukrainian civilian population. We saw at the weekend the attack on the residential block in Dnipro, which has so far claimed at least 20 lives. Just before Christmas, the United States announced it would provide the Patriot missile system to Ukraine. What assessment has the Defence Secretary made of the impact that that will have on Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against those missiles, and what further capability could Ukraine use to mitigate further the effect of those frequent attacks, which are intended to destabilise the country and cut off the energy supply?
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Gentleman makes an observation on the powerful and enduring impact of those horrendous attacks. There are echoes of the V1 and V2 campaigns, with little intelligence targeting, by the looks of things, and an attempt to terrify people across Ukraine. Patriot has improved defence of the airspace: despite Russia’s claims, the vast proportion of those munitions still do not make it through, but the tragedy is that some do, and we would all like to work to make it 100% certain that none will.
The Patriot is a long-range anti-ballistic missile and interceptor, so it is probably more use at some stages against some of the more sophisticated unmanned aerial vehicles or missiles that could be fired, or are fired occasionally—we would all be worried about the next Iranian ballistic missiles if they were put in. What the Ukrainians need is volume of short-range and medium-range ammunition to deal with the whole range of UAVs. That is the real key. They might have the most sophisticated launchers in the world, but if they cannot afford the missiles, they will soon run out, as Russia is now finding.
Ukraine needs volume, better co-ordination and better targeting. The United Kingdom has helped; as I said in the House last time, we used our knowledge to advise and help them on how to layer their air defence better and prioritise the infrastructure they need to defend. The Russians are firing at so many targets that the Ukrainians need to start with a priority list, as they are now doing, and that is having an effect. That is why we now see Russia being more indiscriminate, just throwing in anything, so its attacks are less predictable and therefore harder to defend.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and the welcome news of the latest UK package of support, including the Challenger 2 tanks and Bulldogs, and support from other international partners such as the US and France. Can he reassure us that he and colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and our diplomatic routes will continue to do all they can to ensure that we bring on board maximum support from other countries through our bilateral relationships? That will be crucial to maximising the force multiplier effect he referred to in his statement, in terms of both military and humanitarian support.
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend is right. I come to this House to talk about defence, weaponry and lethal aid, but there is also the diplomatic pillar, which is incredibly important, and the economic pillar, through sanctions. That is an important track to engage on. I know some of that work is not made public, but some of it is, and Russia is seeing its economy damaged by those sanctions, which will not be removed any time soon. It is important to recognise that there is a diplomatic track—there is a diplomatic track open to President Putin, should he wish to end this senseless violence and invasion and seek to remove his forces from Ukraine—because this is not a one-way thing and we all work very hard on it. The military goes hand in hand with diplomacy and the economy, and we must ensure we keep that up, whether in the UN, bilaterally or in new forums.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Building on his exposition of the economic, diplomatic and military levers, communication levers are also key. We know that Russian propaganda wishes to twist international support for Ukraine into a narrative suggesting that this is somehow a war of self-defence, with Russia fighting in self-defence against NATO. How is the Secretary of State working with Cabinet colleagues, and with people who work on strategic communications at the MOD, to counter that narrative?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is right: it is incredibly important that we counter that narrative. He will have heard me say twice from the Dispatch Box what this is not. It is not an attack on Russia; it is not a proxy war; it is not a NATO-orchestrated aggression in any way at all. It is fundamentally about helping Ukraine to defend itself. We make sure that we message that throughout Government, and that we message it as much as possible into Russia, so that Russians understand the consequences of President Putin’s badly thought through special operation. I think that is why we are seeing fractures in the Russian general command and, indeed, among its political leaders, who themselves know that nothing is going to plan.
This is important, and it is important further across the globe. When there are grain shortages in Africa, or people cannot afford it, it is not because of the west; it is because of what Russia has done in the Black sea and what Russia is doing to the ports in Mariupol and other such places. That is why Africans are finding it hard to get grain and are paying more for it—because of Russia.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend describes the Russian armed forces as “poorly led” and “badly equipped”. What assessment does he make of the Wagner Group, which seems to be operating independently and, allegedly, with more successful effect? Am I right in thinking that an organisation that pulls criminals out of jail and sends them into battle is surely operating well outside the law of armed conflict?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about Wagner. For a long time, Wagner has operated outside the rules of any law. That has been its selling point in Libya and Mali in Africa: “Pay for us with contracts, diamonds or whatever”—there are no rules. Wagner has been observed on numerous occasions engaged in war crimes and events, but given its proximity to the Kremlin, it does not fool anyone that it is somehow some unilateral, purely commercial operation. Currently, we think that two thirds of the Wagner force around the Bakhmut area are convicts taken from prisons. They are suffering approximately two thirds casualty rates, so it is not a good deal for convicts in the Wagner Group.
It is also a very worrying reflection. If I were General Gerasimov, I would be asking myself why I am outwitted and outperformed by a bunch of mercenaries and, by the looks of things in Moscow, rivals. What does it say about the Russian army that it takes a bunch of mercenaries, as they would see it, to get some traction? However, I would not believe Wagner’s propaganda either. There is not much traction; there is only death, at the hands of Jafar Montazeri their paid commanders or, indeed, their own men. We have seen the social media videos in which the group executed a convict of their own using a sledgehammer.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
This war has been going on not for 10 months but for nine years. We need to make sure that Putin ultimately loses, but it is not just about military solutions, it is also about economic ones: rebuilding, reconstructing and, frankly, protecting many Ukrainians from the freezing cold this winter and enabling them to put food on the table for their children over the years to come. At the moment, we have guaranteed something like £3 billion-worth of financial support, but there is an easier solution. More than £23 billion-worth of Russian assets are sitting in British banks. Why do we not seize them and send them to Ukraine?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman makes the most important point first: even before 24 February, Russia had killed 18,000 Ukrainian troops since 2014; not a week or month went by on that border when they were not shot. When we said to people, “It might escalate, or it might be a war,” Ukrainians often looked at us and said, “Where have you been for the last decade?” It is very sobering to go to the memorial in Kyiv; most of those plaques are from way before February 2021.
On the point about building, refurbishment and support to refugees, that is where I think Germany needs to get the credit. Germany and Poland have hosted tens of thousands of Ukrainians. It is putting a lot of money into aid and support for Ukraine and is making a significant difference. I have often said that the strength of an alliance of 30 or 40 is that we can move at different speeds.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question about Russian assets, as the former criminal finance Minister and Security Minister, I would be quite interested to know why we cannot do that.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I join others in thanking my right hon. Friend for his statement and for our ongoing support to Ukraine.
I want to follow up on what my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) just said about the Wagner Group. We heard last week how the brutal attack on the tiny town of Soledar has left the fields littered with the corpses of men. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has just agreed from the Dispatch Box that the organisation has been guilty of many war crimes in many parts of the world—not least last year in Mali, but we can also add the Central African Republic to his list.
It has been put to me that if the Wagner Group were proscribed as a terrorist organisation, that could make it much more difficult for Prigozhin to recruit into the organisation. I urge my right hon. Friend to work with the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary to make sure that we are gathering all the evidence we have against the Wagner Group and taking every single action we can to try to curtail its activities, including proscribing it as a terrorist organisation if it comes to that.
Mr Wallace
I am very happy to look at exactly that, although I am not sure that the group recruits at all any more; I think it just piles people in.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Defence Secretary for his full exposition of the military aid that he is providing. It is so important that Ukrainians have the most advanced systems at their disposal. However, we also know that Putin is targeting the energy infrastructure across Ukraine, so could the Defence Secretary say a little more about what we are doing to help protect that infrastructure and rebuild it for the future?
Mr Wallace
Yes. First of all, we and the international community are providing generators—I am happy to write to the hon. Lady with the exact numbers—to mitigate the effect of those strikes. At the same time, as I said in response to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), we have helped with co-ordination and prioritisation. A number of international partners are helping with the training and support of the brave men and women who go out there to fix that infrastructure almost immediately once it is hit and taken down, ensuring that more and more people are able to look after the electricity infrastructure. That is incredibly important. Of course, Putin knows that the weather will improve, hopefully, in the spring, and then some of his impacts will be lessened. I think that is one of the other reasons why we are seeing an increase in strikes.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
How many defence reviews can my right hon. Friend recall that were preceded by fashionable commentators decrying the idea that main battle tanks had any utility in modern warfare? Now that that has been disproved and my right hon. Friend has made a hugely significant move this week by agreeing to send main battle tanks in support of Ukraine’s defence, will he consider sending more if those tanks prove to be effective and can be effectively supported? Can we use this as an opportunity to bolster and strengthen the supply chain and manufacture of our next generation of tanks now that he has proved to the Treasury that they are not a waste of money?
Mr Wallace
First, the good thing about the Challenger 3 supply chain is that we are doing the work in Stockport and Telford, and I am delighted that we are also doing the Boxers near there. We are reinvigorating the land systems supply chain. On my hon. Friend’s point about tanks, no one was ever writing that we should get rid of tanks. Hopefully my defence review was a bit better than the defence review that said there was no use for a machine gun after the Japanese-Russian war, or indeed the brave admiral who said that submarines had absolutely no utility in the lead-up to being sunk in the Firth of Forth by a German U-boat. I do not think we have said tanks should be got rid of, but Ukraine has shown that armour is important, and not just for the basic protection from hand grenades dropped by UAVs.
Ukraine also shows that without armour properly protected in a 360° way, forces are incredibly vulnerable to handheld anti-tank weapons. The House may have noticed that the British NLAW and the US Javelin are successfully remodelling hundreds and hundreds of T-72s from very short distance. We have to have proper protection, both electronically but also in the layered defence that we need on the modern battlefield.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Whatever the manifold differences we have in this place, it is good that people across Ukraine and Russia will have heard once again the resolute message from all parts of the House. We support the Secretary of State’s move to donate the Challenger tanks, and we are resolute in saying that Putin’s aggression must fail. The Secretary of State said in his statement that the Challenger tank donation will help not only to resist the Russians, but to expel them. We have heard Ukrainian officials and the NATO Secretary-General saying that Russia is planning a major offensive this spring. Can the Secretary of State tell us what more the UK can do provide broad support beyond tanks to the Ukrainians to repel that major Russian aggression?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I recognise that 14 tanks will not change the course of history, but it is also about trying to be a force multiplier. If we can put the 14 tanks with the 50 Bradleys and deep long-range artillery at divisional level, as well as hopefully unlocking Leopard tanks across Europe, we can raise a significant mass that is important to enable the fire and manoeuvre warfare that will be needed to push Russia out. Of course Russia has planned for an offensive. With Gerasimov being reappointed, effectively, he will be able to make the same mistakes as he did the first time. Nevertheless, Russia is not giving up, but neither are we. I noticed social media in Russia commenting that our decision to send Challenger tanks would change nothing. That is right, it will not change anything; Ukraine will continue to win and Russia will continue to lose.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
May I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement, which I welcome, and commend him and his Department for the superb work being undertaken right now to help defend Ukraine? As he knows, armour is logistically very challenging. Can he confirm how it will be deployed, whether risks to the supply chain can be mitigated at all and whether we have a plan for how we will turn our own land equipment availability from red back to green?
Mr Wallace
On my hon. Friend’s last point, we must first be honest about the state of our armoured fleet and our land systems. I have been pretty brutal in the House about how the state of it is not acceptable. It has not been in a good state for more than a decade, if not much longer. How it has happened, I do not know. If we are not honest, we cannot start that process. We are putting in £24 billion to modernise or change that fleet as much as possible.
My hon. Friend is right on the supply chain. We are well supported by some of the neighbouring states in thinking that through—the Slovakians have been forward-leaning in helping to support the T-72s and refurbishing them—but we are also assessing our supply chain to see what is needed. That is timely, because with our Challenger 3 upgrade, we need the supply chain to be reinvigorated, and that is what we are working on. I am happy to meet him to discuss it further.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the UK Government on following through on their commitment to support Ukraine, as evidenced by this statement and the provision of 14 Challenger 2 tanks and other donations. With the potential of a Russian offensive, more tanks were clearly needed, and more anti-missile defences are critical to enable Ukrainians to get on their feet, to survive and to end this conflict with Russia once and for all. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has shown the will and the physical commitment, but I make a special appeal for anti-missile defences so that Ukrainians can keep the lights on, heat their homes and save lives, and so that, with the generators and engineering help, Ukraine can rebuild.
Mr Wallace
Yes, we are committed to that. Today, I also announced more high velocity and low velocity missiles, both of which are made in Northern Ireland and are doing a fantastic job.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Defence Secretary clearly laid out the reasons why the Government are providing a squadron of 14 Challenger tanks to help the defence of Ukraine, and he implied that issues of supply chains, spares, ammo and training have been carefully considered. He will also accept that the Challengers’ biggest contribution may be diplomatic by helping him to unlock solid commitments from the 14 Leopard-using nations. What might be the impact of any commitments made at the meeting in Germany, combined with the Challenger tanks, on the Russian armed forces’ leaders?
Mr Wallace
I hope that the Russian armed forces recognised over the Christmas break that their best bet is to cut and run or, indeed, to stop and withdraw. I think that is dawning on a significant number of commanders, but the problem is that they are not around for long enough to pull the levers and make a difference. Surovikin has been replaced by Gerasimov, who perhaps has been put in prime position to be the fall guy in three months’ time, as all his predecessors have. That might be the cunning Kremlin plan—I do not know—but it is important to recognise that somehow, Russia needs to come to its senses about what is happening: the special operation has failed and is failing, and the best thing that it can do is to leave. We will then try to find a way forward.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Sadly, we saw more evidence this weekend of Putin’s barbaric targeting of civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, particularly with the residential blocks in Dnipro, which is why I welcome today’s announcement about the Challenger 2 tanks. Can the Secretary of State confirm that we are not going it alone? On behalf of my Ukrainian community in Huddersfield and Colne Valley, who are proud of our steadfast support for Ukraine, can he also confirm that we will continue with our donations, as he mentioned, of generators, humanitarian support and medical supplies for the Ukrainian people?
Mr Wallace
Yes, those supplies will become even more important and I will do everything I can to stimulate more of them. If right hon. and hon. Members have companies in their constituency that are keen or are facing barriers to do that, they should ensure that I am made aware and we will see what we can do. In the next few months, we have to do everything to stop the targeting of cities and infrastructure, and to help Ukrainians to see it through and defeat Russia. Targeting civilian blocks in Dnipro does nothing but commit murder.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
The removal of Russian forces from cities such as Kherson has led some civilians to return to their homes, even though the areas are contaminated with explosive weapons. Last week, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on explosive threats, I met a Ukrainian MP who is seeking to put together a civil de-mining programme. Can the Secretary of State ensure that his officials will be available to meet me and other interested parties to put together a programme to help people as they return to conflict areas in an appropriate and timely manner?
Mr Wallace
I or my officials will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. He will have noticed that in the statement, I announced £28 million for minefield breaching and bridging capabilities—combat engineering that is desperately needed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement.
Points of Order
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week, the High Court ruled against the Dartmoor national park authority, which sought to protect the right of free access for wild camping. That is a significant backward step that seemingly puts the financial interests of one person above the fundamental access rights that have been hard fought for and provided for in law by this House. It goes beyond Dartmoor and could put at risk rights and protections for national parks, including the right to roam. Have you had any notice from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of her intention to make a statement to the House? If not, can you advise the House on how best to pursue the issue on behalf of communities across the country who could be affected by the judgment?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me notice of it. I can confirm that I have not had notice of a statement on this matter. However, the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, and Ministers and those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his point of order. On advice about how to bring this matter to the attention of the House in the future, he is a very experienced Member of the House and I am sure he will know the various options available to him, but if he wants any further advice, I suggest that he speaks to the Clerks in the Table Office.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Rumours abound this afternoon across the House that the Government may make a statement this evening. Has your office or that of the Speaker been advised by the Government that that is their intention?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have received no notification of any statement likely to be made tonight, and I am not aware that the Speaker has.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Staveley Town Council in my constituency, which is led by the self-styled Staveley Independents with the support of the Liberal Democrats, has in effect gone bankrupt. I am told that, since November, staff have either not been paid at all or have been paid late. If it was a tier 1 or tier 2 authority, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities would intervene, but as it is a parish or town council, I am told that no such mechanism is in place. Have you or Mr Speaker been notified of the Department’s intention to make any statement on this matter, which is of great concern to my constituents, and if not, can you give me any advice about how we may be able to ensure that members of staff at Staveley Town Council are paid and that services continue to be provided while the authority attempts to extricate itself from the current crisis it is in?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. It is obviously a very worrying situation for the staff of the council. I am not aware of any intention to make a statement made about it. Those on the Treasury Bench and Ministers will clearly have heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I suggest he tables some questions, writes to the appropriate Minister or seeks a meeting with the appropriate Minister to find out whether there any ways in which this situation can be resolved.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, I was unable to catch the eye of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) as he was handing out some crib sheets in advance of the next debate. I know we are going to discuss minimum service levels, but given that crib sheets have been handed out, could that service be extended to those of us on the Opposition Benches as well?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Well, I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, but I am afraid I really have no responsibility for pieces of paper that may be handed out, unless of course they have gone through the Table Office.
Bill Presented
Relocation of the House of Lords (Report to Parliament) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Paul Maynard presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of the House of Lords meeting in a large ballroom in Blackpool.
Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March and to be printed (Bill 227).
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
Monday 16th January 2023
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 View all Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:58 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 49 / Noes: 482 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 249 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 306 / Noes: 252 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 305 / Noes: 49 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must inform the House that the reasoned amendments have not been selected.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Grant Shapps)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Government firmly believe that the ability to strike is an important element of industrial relations in the UK. That ability is rightly protected by law, and we understand that an element of disruption is likely with any strike. However, we also need to maintain a reasonable balance between the ability of workers to strike and the rights of the public, who work hard and expect the essential services that they pay for to be there when they need them. We must be able to have confidence that when strikes occur, people’s lives and livelihoods are not put at undue risk. As has become clear from recent industrial action, that is not always the case, so we need a safety net in place to ensure that the public do not become collateral damage.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Grant Shapps
I will make a little bit of progress first. Right now, up and down the country, households are struggling with the repercussions of high inflation caused by covid and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The UK is not alone in feeling the pressure, which is also felt by many other countries, particularly within the European Union. Recently, the Prime Minister outlined the Government’s priorities: to build a better, more secure and more prosperous future, one that this country and our workforce—public or private—fully deserve. By halving inflation, growing the economy and getting debt down, we can ensure that our vital public services are fit. As the Government get on with those priorities, we also have a duty to protect access to vital public services which, let us not forget, the public are paying for through taxation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Secretary of State, I believe in the fundamental right of a worker to withdraw their labour, whether that happens to be from an employer or against the Government. I understand that at this time many people feel the same, and for those who are toying with this idea, let me say that the ambulance service, nurses and doctors, for example, have been able to ensure that there was an emergency service. Do the Government really believe that withdrawing the right of a worker to withdraw their labour is what they are about?
Grant Shapps
I always think that people think very carefully about this issue, and they are right to do so. We are operating within the context of a crisis in global growth. The International Monetary Fund states that a third of the world will be in recession this year, caused by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine—[Interruption.] I am surprised to hear Labour Members yawning and moaning. Putin invaded Ukraine—[Interruption.] What Labour Members do not seem to realise is that what then happened to energy prices caused a crisis that has put up inflation throughout the western world.
Grant Shapps
I will just make this point because I think Labour Members may find it useful. Those prices going up throughout the rest of the world, including here, has also pushed up wage claims. But I do not think we should get into a 1970s spiral, where we end up with higher wage claims and higher wage settlements, with higher wage claims and inflation continuing for ever. That is a cycle we must break. Clearly, if we were to meet all the inflation busting demands of the unions, that would make life harder not only for some but for every single family in this country. That is why we cannot do that. The Government are therefore absolutely clear: we want constructive dialogue with the unions, and the public have had enough of the constant, most unwelcome, and frankly dangerous, disruptions to their lives.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Last week, Human Rights Watch warned that
“fundamental and hard-won rights are being systematically dismantled”
in the UK. Is this anti-strike legislation part of the danger that Human Rights Watch is warning about?
Grant Shapps
The International Labour Organisation itself says—I will cover this shortly in my speech—that it is perfectly proper to have a balance between minimum service levels and people’s right to strike. I support the ILO in saying that; I absolutely agree it is right. I note, however, that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that he has received £94,000-plus from unions. Now, I have no issue with him receiving that money from unions—I do not think that we should have taxpayer-funded political parties in this House—but I think it is only right that when Opposition Members stand up, they reflect what is on their records, which is that they have received a lot of money from unions and now seek to represent them in the debate.
Millions of people who rely on essential transport to get to work or to family commitments now every day have the extra stress of worrying about making alternative, sometimes costly, arrangements because of the forever strikes. There are those who, at the most terrifying time of their lives—perhaps with a poorly loved one—do not know whether an ambulance will arrive, because the unions have refused to provide a national safety net. [Interruption.] I hear the barracking and understand that Opposition Members do not want to hear what people throughout the country are feeling, but it is a fact that when strikes are on and ambulances are unable to find out from their unions whether they will operate, that is an additional concern for members of the public—including Opposition Members’ constituents, whom they seem rather not to care about in this case. I am surprised about that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I will make a little progress.
Then there are children, who are desperately trying to catch up on the lost learning—
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Grant Shapps
I will give way shortly; I will make a little bit of progress.
Those children are desperately trying to catch up on learning that they missed throughout covid, and again they are unsure about whether they will be able to get to school. There are also the businesses throughout the land whose sales and productivity are suffering. They are terrified that, at a time of high inflation, their livelihoods are at risk along with those of their employees.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Could the Secretary of State give us a little more indication of how he will consult on and agree minimum standards in the railway industry?
Grant Shapps
I will set out in a bit more detail the way in which the legislation will work in a while, but, briefly speaking, secondary legislation by regulation will be used in each individual sector to come to the right balance. I will explain that in more detail, if my right hon. Friend is patient.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I will give way in just a moment. I have already taken more interventions from Opposition Members than from Government Members.
I think it is true to say that there comes a time when we cannot let such a situation continue. That is why we need minimum safety and service levels to keep livelihoods and lives safe. It is frankly irresponsible, and even surprising, for the Opposition to suggest otherwise.
Karl Turner
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He wants to talk about minimum safety levels. The reality is this: after 12 years of a Tory Government, minimum safety no longer exists in our NHS. A paramedic contacted me directly at the weekend to say that he had begun his shift at 7 am expecting to sign off later that evening, and spent the entirety of that shift sitting outside Hull Royal Infirmary because there was no bed available for his patient, whose life he had saved. There is not any safety in the NHS as a result of the Tory Government. The Secretary of State needs to acknowledge that before we move on to discuss anything else.
Grant Shapps
I am surprised by how the hon. Gentleman, who normally speaks a lot of sense in the House, put his point across. Yes, of course it is the case that the NHS has been under unbelievable stress, not least because of two years of covid and all the backlog that has been created. It is worth reminding Labour Members that, had they had their way, we would have been in lockdown for a heck of a lot longer and those cases would have been even worse. I do not follow the logic of his argument. He seems to be arguing that just because there are times of danger, we ought, by design, to enable a system that prevents unions in the ambulance service from telling the NHS when ambulances will be there and what the minimum service would be. That is the issue that we seek to address today.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
If this is all about safety, why is the word “safety” not used once in the Bill or its explanatory notes?
Grant Shapps
It is fairly obvious to say that a minimum service level in railways, for example, is about people’s livelihoods rather than safety, but that the NHS and the ambulance service not agreeing nationally is a minimum safety level issue. I would have thought that was pretty straightforward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I will just make a little bit of progress.
The Bill will ensure that we protect the ability of workers to take industrial action, but that we also protect the public from disproportionate disruption to their daily lives and that, to put it simply, one person’s right to strike does not infringe on someone else’s right to life and limb.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
There is an array of riches. I will give way to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell).
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Secretary of State has never negotiated a minimum service agreement in the NHS. I have. The Secretary of State is completely fabricating what happens. It is the trade unions who work with the staff and the employers to put a safe agreement—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am afraid I will have to ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her remark about fabricating. She will do that, I know. I am sure that is not what she meant to say and will indicate that that is not what she meant to say—yes?
Rachael Maskell
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. I will rephrase what I was saying. The reality is that safe agreements are negotiated between the staff and the employers. That happens on the ground; the process and the outcomes protect the NHS, because that is what staff want to do. Will the Secretary of State ensure that he reflects the truth of what happens in the NHS?
Grant Shapps
I would just say to the hon. Lady, who I know has received money from GMB, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, Unite the union, CLP among others—nothing wrong with that; I am just putting it on the record—that she is wrong factually about the way the last two strikes, last week and in December, occurred.
Grant Shapps
I am actually answering the hon. Gentleman’s colleague’s point. One at a time.
The way that ambulance strike worked was that the NHS was unable to find out in advance from the ambulance unions where and when, nationwide, cover would be provided. It is the NHS that said that, not the Government. As a result, the NHS has not been able to put the appropriate level of cover in place in advance. If by chance we are wrong about that, there is a safety mechanism in the Bill for that. Although we are taking primary powers, should Parliament so decide, we have said we do not want to use them if voluntary arrangements can be made. I refer Opposition Members to the voluntary arrangements—
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
Let me finish the first point and move on with the speech.
I refer Opposition Members to the voluntary arrangements that were successfully made with the Royal College of Nursing, which did provide a national guarantee. In that case, it would not be necessary to put the measures in place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I hope the House will appreciate that there are a lot of people who want to contribute. I want to give people the opportunity to do that in their own speeches. [Interruption.] If Members do not mind, I will turn to the detail of the Bill.
The Bill establishes a legal framework to implement minimum safety and service levels during periods of strike action. It will achieve that by amending existing legislation, the Trade Union and Labour Relations Concili —[Hon. Members: “Consolidation”] Thank you folks. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. I was trying get the word “conciliatory” in there for Opposition Members. The legislation will allow regulations to be made to ensure that specified services cannot shut down completely when workers strike. That is to maintain crucial and, in many cases, life-saving services. The relevant sectors specified in the proposed legislation are: health services; fire and rescue services; education services; transport services; decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel; and border security.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Can the Secretary of State help me with this? The human rights memorandum that accompanied the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill last October stated specifically that the Government’s legal advice was that it is not justifiable or necessary in a democratic society to have such restrictions in emergency and patient care services, in fire and rescue, or in education—only in transport. That does not appear in the human rights memorandum that accompanies this Bill. Has the Government’s legal advice changed or have they just changed their mind for reasons of political convenience?
Grant Shapps
The hon. and learned Lady must surely have noticed that we have subsequently had disruption in the NHS, including in the ambulance service. What has happened in that disruption is that although the nurses have very sensibly provided a national level of safe service, unfortunately the same has not happened in the ambulance service. That is why this legislation is required in other areas at this time.
Grant Shapps
I have given way once to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), so I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham).
Richard Graham
My right hon. Friend is under a constant onslaught of noise from Opposition Members, who show terrific support for those in the unions in their constituencies and for those in the unions funding their constituency offices, but who seem to forget the interests of all our constituents, which are in the minimum service level agreements that my right hon. Friend is proposing. Ultimately, what people in our constituencies need to know, whether or not we know them, is that in those six sectors a minimum service will be provided regardless of the right of people in the sector to hold back their labour on a pay negotiation or for any other reason. [Interruption.] That is a reasonable proposition, and we should be heard. [Hon. Members: “Speech!”]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before the Secretary of State answers the hon. Gentleman, I remind the House that it is important that we use moderation in our language and that we do not impugn the motives of others. That is not how we want the debate to continue. It is an important subject, so let us try to introduce moderation into our discussion.
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester is absolutely right about the reason for requiring minimum standards.
Grant Shapps
I will in a moment, if I can make a little progress.
Using the powers proposed in the Bill, regulations will set out the specific services within each sector in which a minimum level of service will be applied; they will also set out the levels themselves. Those regulations will be tailored to each relevant service, taking account of the different risks to public safety or the impacts on daily life and on the economy. The Bill is clear, however, that such regulations may be made only after appropriate consultation and the approval of both Houses. Of course, the Government may choose not to use the regulation-making powers in the Bill if adequate voluntary agreements, where necessary, are already in place between employers, the relevant sectors and the relevant unions.
Amy Callaghan
I thank the Secretary of State for acknowledging my presence in the Chamber after so many attempts to intervene. Will he now pass comment on the fact that life-and-limb cover already exists in legislation and that the true purpose of this shameful Bill is simply to erode workers’ rights?
Grant Shapps
I simply do not accept that point. Although it is true that life-and-limb measures exist, we have seen through the many months of rail closures and the strikes that took place last week and in December that unfortunately minimum service levels in one case, and actually minimum safety levels in another, have simply not been available. I know that Opposition Members do not want to accept this fundamental point, but their constituents’ lives are being put at risk by the NHS’s inability to put the correct cover in place with sufficient notice. They seem to imagine that the Army will just be there at no notice and with no ability to organise which areas of the country it needs to be in. That, I am afraid, is not a practical way to run the—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I cannot hear the answer that the Secretary of State is giving to the question. There is no point in just shouting when he is actually answering the question.
Grant Shapps
I suppose the fundamental point is that we hope very much that, in many cases, we will not need to use the powers conferred by the legislation, but we have seen that that will not always be possible.
Sir Chris Bryant
I am a member of the GMB. I happen not to have received any money from the GMB, although I would be proud to do so—certainly a lot prouder that I would be of receiving £2.5 million from Lubov Chernukhin. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this legislation cannot possibly be used to sort out the present winter of discontent? If anything, it will make it far more difficult to secure a resolution of any of the individual strikes, and therefore it is just political posturing.
Grant Shapps
I think the GMB will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s pitch for some money. If he gets that money, it will join the £120 million that the unions have supplied to the Labour party since 2010.
I make this point only because it is relevant to today’s debate. We must be here to represent our constituents, and our constituents know from paying attention to the recent strikes that when the Royal College of Nursing worked with the NHS, it was able to provide timely assurances at a national level to ensure that the most critical services—including chemotherapy, critical care, paediatric and A&E—were not affected, which shows that even when parties disagree, they can do so in a mature manner. Unfortunately, however, that is not always the case.
During recent strike action by the ambulance service—this has been referred to a couple of times, and I want to read it out because it is written down—the NHS has not been reassured by the relevant union that it can rely on the current system of voluntary local derogation, which I think is what the hon. Member for York Central was talking about earlier. It could not rely on those arrangements to ensure that patient and public services were provided. Last week, and in December, arrangements were being disputed right up to the wire—right up to the last minute—which created uncertainty and left officials with little time to organise contingency measures such as military support. That is the situation that we cannot, in all conscience, allow to continue.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I declare that I am a proud member of a trade union, and was a trade union officer for a number of years before coming here. In fact, I have probably been part of 1,000 or so pay-and-conditions negotiations, all of which were resolved, with employer and employees all perfectly happy with the outcome. That is something that the Secretary of State has been unable to do, whether in relation to the railway or much more widely, which is why we are having this debate. Can he accept that he has failed, and it is time to get the trade unionists into the room and to put this legislation in the bin, where it belongs?
Grant Shapps
Let me say this, in fairness to the hon. Lady. It is the case that the employers and the unions, and more recently Ministers as well, have been meeting, and it is also the case that even when there have been ministerial meetings—including in Scotland and Labour Wales—the disputes have continued. So we clearly cannot continue to rely on voluntary arrangements to ensure the safety of the people we represent. After all, strokes and heart attacks do not respect boundaries such as trust borders. I am intrigued to know what Labour Members would say to their constituents, perhaps grieving constituents who have lost loved ones because of some sort of postcode lottery.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Last week, during my weekly surgery, a constituent asked me why the Labour party was too scared to ask its trade union colleagues to come to the table and negotiate a peaceful resolution—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Members must not shout other Members down.
Saqib Bhatti
I could not figure out why Labour was scared to encourage trade unionists to come to the table. Why does the Secretary of State think Labour is so scared of securing a peaceful resolution of the strikes?
Grant Shapps
I think there are 120 million very good answers to that question. We have an opportunity to keep people, their families and their jobs safe during periods of disruption, and that is what we intend to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I will give way in a moment, but I want to make a little progress first.
The Bill and subsequent regulations are designed to enable employers to specify the workers required to meet minimum safety and service levels during strikes within relevant sectors. This will be done through work notices.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Grant Shapps
As I have said, I will in a moment, but I want to make some progress.
Should a union notify an employer of a strike in accordance with the existing normal rules, the Bill will allow the employer to issue a work notice to the union specifying the workers needed to work during a strike to secure the minimum level of safety and service. Employers will be required to consult the union on the number of workers to be identified in the work notice and the work to be undertaken, and have regard to the union’s views before issuing that work notice.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Members on the Government Benches seem to think that none of those who are striking lives in their constituencies, which I find quite strange. Will the Minister confirm that, once his words have been scrutinised in this Chamber, if any are found to be misleading or incorrect, he will return to the Chamber and correct the record as soon as possible—preferably by the end of the week?
Grant Shapps
I am sure that the normal parliamentary rules apply, so I would never stand here and seek to do such a thing. In the interests of transparency, I will mention the £11,100 that the hon. Member has received from the CLP union in this House—[Interruption.] Sorry, that the CLP received from Unite the union, I should say to satisfy Opposition Members.
Officially, the work notice—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members would let me just explain how this operates—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It really is important that we hear what the Secretary of State has to say. It is also important that any reference to donations or payments is accurate.
Grant Shapps
I should have referred to what the CLP received from Unite the union. Hon. Members are absolutely right to correct me at the Dispatch Box.
The work notice must not list more people than reasonably necessary to meet the minimum level of safety and service. Employers must have no regard to whether someone is or is not a member of the union—or even the CLP—when deciding whether they need to be included in that work notice. Each employer and union must also adhere to data protection legislation.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I am proud of my union membership, which is recorded in the register of Members’ interests, and I used to be a full-time union organiser. The Minister claims that the public’s existence and lives are at risk because of the disputes. Does he not appreciate that thousands of nurses and other workers are leaving the national health service, and thousands of teachers are leaving their profession, because of stress, low pay and underfunding? That is what is causing a great deal of stress and problems for the public. Instead of reaching for the statute book and trying to legally constrain trade unions from their legitimate action, why does the Secretary of State not address the fundamental causes: poverty pay, stress, bad conditions and inadequate service in all parts of the UK?
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Gentleman should note that there are 40,000 more nurses now, and more doctors too. It is important to say that I agree with him, for once, because we are trying to work constructively—as we should—to bring strikes to a conclusion, but we must not do so at the expense of the lives and livelihoods of our constituents. It is not the case that the strikes are always perfectly safe for our constituents. That is why we must act. Unions must take reasonable steps to ensure that members do not participate in strikes if they have been named in a work notice. It is up to unions to ensure public safety and not put lives at risk. Only if they fail to do so could they face civil action in court.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I will make a little more progress, because I think that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would like to hear from other Members, and I have been as generous as possible in allowing interventions.
The Government, unions, employers and workers have a role to play in ensuring that essential services continue even during strikes. That is what we are ensuring. This approach is balanced, reasonable and, above all, fair. Countries such as Australia and Canada have the ability to ban outright those strikes that would endanger lives, such as in some blue-light services. However, this legislation does not seek to ban the right to strike. The Government will always defend the principle that workers should be able to withdraw their labour. In fact, the only time that the right to strike was removed from emergency services was by the Liberal Prime Minister Lloyd George, as part of the Police Act 1919. We do not propose to follow the Lib Dems’ example.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
We are living in a time when democracy and freedom are under threat across the world. The right to strike is an important one. [Interruption.]
Vicky Ford
Thank you for clarifying that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State just mentioned that minimum service levels exist in many other countries, including Italy, Spain and France. I do not know whether Opposition Members have ever been to France, but the French have been known to strike. Does my right hon. Friend agree that my Chelmsford constituents should have the same benefits on strike days as those living in France, Italy and Spain?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no reason that her constituents should suffer lesser protection than people who live in other European nations, most of whom are recognised on most days for being particularly pro-union and helpful in their settlements. I cannot see why Opposition Members would object.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I will give way in just a moment, but I would like to get through a bit more first.
All that we are saying is that, in certain services in these important sectors, the right to strike must be balanced against the needs of the public to rely on a basic level of life-saving care. The legislation simply brings us into line, as my hon. Friend just said, with many other modern European nations, such as Spain, Italy, France and Ireland. They use minimum service levels in a common-sense way to reduce the impact of strikes. The International Labour Organisation itself states that minimum service levels can be a proportionate way of balancing the right to strike with the need to protect the wider public. That is what we are doing. Our own unions subscribe to and support the ILO, as do we.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
On the claim of minimum safety levels across Europe, is the Secretary of State aware that, according to the OECD, France lost, on average, 112 days per 1,000 workers between 2008 and 2018? Spain lost 76 strike days, and Italy lost 42. Yet the UK lost only 20 strike days. Will the Secretary of State admit that this law is just to ban people from taking the legal action to strike?
Grant Shapps
I agree that we have had a good working relationship for the last several decades. The hon. Lady is right to point out that, as a result, over the last two or three decades we have typically suffered fewer strikes than some in continental Europe. As I have explained a number of times, we have seen in recent months a flare-up of strikes that are putting people’s lives and livelihoods at risk. This Government will not stand by and watch that happen.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
There is a lot of focus on in Europe, but I would like to focus on Gloucestershire, where nurses have chosen not to strike. I thank them for that and for all the work they do in Stroud. I see nothing in this legislation that will prevent them from making the difficult decision to strike, or from joining their colleagues in unions. We are protecting those rights. It is the minimal standards that the public needs.
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about minimum standards. For anyone who cares about the ability to take industrial action and to strike, what we are doing here enshrines that. It does not remove people’s ability to strike, but it prevents union bosses who perhaps are not as reasonable as the RCN from calling strikes that potentially put people’s lives at risk. That is a very different proposition, which I am proud to support.
The Government expect to consult on minimum service levels for ambulance, fire and rail services first. It is expected that these consultations will be published during the passage of this Bill. At the same time as bringing forward the legislation, the Government are doing all they can to continue the discussions that everybody is calling for to ensure that we get a pay settlement with unions that is affordable for the unions, for the country and for the workers paying for it.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
As far as I can tell, the Government have ruled out voluntary options 1 and 2 in their assessment, on the basis that they will be ineffective, particularly where unions and employers have major disagreements. The question is: why and how have the Government arrived at that decision now, in advance of the legislation itself?
Grant Shapps
It is because we were given adequate demonstration from the recent strikes that unfortunately in some cases the unions involved have not acted in the national interest, whereas others—the RCN, for example—have very much done so. I want to stress what I said at the top of my speech, which is that I do not want us to have to use this legislation if it is not required. We have live strikes going on, so we will be able to see where it is required and where it is not.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I feel I have been generous in allowing interventions and it is right to complete my segment so that others can get on and speak.
We are mindful of and thankful for the contribution of public service workers in this country, but where unions insist on disproportionate and sometimes plain unsafe levels of industrial action without informing the NHS, for example, and others, we must take the necessary steps to protect the public.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Can the Secretary of State tell the House how many people died in the care of the national health service during the recent periods of industrial unrest who would not have died had the provisions of this Bill been in force at the time?
Grant Shapps
The problem, as people will recognise, is that as we do not have a nationally agreed level of coverage—particularly in the ambulance service—it is difficult to know or predict what would have happened if the Army had not stepped in. I know from talking to colleagues and officials that one of the problems was that, because of the late notice and the randomised trust-by-trust agreements, they have been unable to put in a national framework that would mean that it would not matter if you lived in Islington North or somewhere else; you would still get coverage on strike days. We said in our manifesto, and I repeat now, that it is not fair to let trade union leaders undermine the livelihoods of others, and nor is it fair for them to put lives and livelihoods at risk.
Nadia Whittome
Does the Secretary of State see the irony in expecting unions to ensure minimum safe service levels on strike days when his own Government are failing to do so on every other day? What does he make of nurses’ reports that staffing levels are in fact safer on strike days because the unions are negotiating appropriate cover compared with non-strike days?
Grant Shapps
I did not quite follow the hon. Lady’s point on the railways. The railways on strike days are finding it hard to offer any services at all, even for key workers and the people the Opposition sometimes claim to represent the most, such as the hard-working cleaner or the hospital porter. The people who cannot do their jobs remotely are unable to get to their jobs and they are losing money. They are becoming fed up with the forever strikes where the unions simply will not put the offer to their members in order for the members to have a say. Minimum service levels are important for that reason, and I have covered numerous times why we think minimum safety levels protect people’s lives.
In this Second Reading debate, we are simply asking the unions to tell us when they are going to withdraw their labour so that we can agree a minimum safety level. This is hardly revolutionary stuff. It is just a common-sense safety net to keep the public safe and ease some of the enormous anxiety that they have felt over the last few months. Failing to support the Bill today will mean that Members who oppose this legislation are essentially prepared to put the safety and welfare of their own constituents at risk. I commend the Bill to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
As colleagues can see, well over 50 hon. and right hon. Members are wishing to catch my eye. Before I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I want to inform colleagues that there will be an immediate four-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches so that we can try to get everybody in.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
First, let me declare an interest as a proud lifelong trade unionist. I regret the tone of the Secretary of State’s speech today. If he is implying in any way that Members of the House do not care about their constituents or put their constituents first, or that members of our vital public services who got us through the pandemic do not take the safety of the people they look after seriously and would walk away, I think he should reflect on his comments.
I have been a Member of this House for some seven years now, and I cannot recall a measure that is at once so irrational and so insulting. Not only is this legislation a vindictive assault on the basic freedoms of British working people, but it is as empty of detail as it is full of holes. We will oppose the sacking of nurses Bill, and it is not just about nurses but about the many key workers who we clapped and who kept our services going in the face of the pandemic. We will vote against this legislation tonight, and the next Labour Government will repeal it.
We are in the middle of an economic crisis of the Government’s making. Working people are facing the largest fall in living standards in a generation. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State keeps shouting “Putin”, but what about Liz Truss?
Angela Rayner
What about the Conservatives crashing the economy? The Secretary of State forgets the fact that inflation has gone through the roof under their watch. Thirteen years of Conservative failure. Members watching this debate and constituents up and down the country know the truth, and they will tell this Government what they think, come the next general election.
Working people are facing the largest fall in living standards in a generation. In-work poverty, insecure work and financial insecurity are rampant. Inflation is in double digits. It is in this context that we have seen the greatest levels of strike disruption in 33 years, with ambulance workers taking their first major strike action in decades and the first ever strike in the history of the Royal College of Nursing. Our posties, train drivers, Border Force, health workers, train cleaners and even Ministers’ own officials have taken action too. The Prime Minister will not admit it, but this is a crisis and it is a crisis of the Government’s making. This legislation does nothing to resolve the problems that they have caused. There is no common sense in it at all.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a proud trade union member. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this legislation does nothing to address the underlying reasons NHS staff and others have taken the incredibly difficult decision to strike? We are going to spend a number of hours in here this evening, but surely that time would be much better spent by the Government getting round the table with members of the NHS, listening to their concerns and coming to a resolution that would help to move things forward, rather than wasting our time here this evening on this horrible piece of legislation.
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and I absolutely agree. I was reflecting while the Secretary of State was making his opening speech, and I was thinking that, if I still worked in social care or one of the key public services—if I was paramedic, a nurse or one of those key workers he mentioned—and I was listening to this debate, I would be really upset and offended by the way he represented them here today. That is not what the Labour party thinks of those key workers.
The Secretary of State has claimed that this legislation is about public safety, so why does the Bill not mention safety once? He knows full well that working people already take steps to protect the public during strikes through derogations and voluntary agreements, yet he brazenly claims that this punitive legislation is needed because of ambulance workers. That is insulting and shameful, and I think he should apologise for the way in which he has awfully smeared ambulance workers.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I thank my Unison comrade for giving way. I am not a member of the parliamentary Labour party, but I am a proud trade unionist. Will my good friend remind the House that section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 guarantees that trade unions will agree to provide life-and-limb cover during an industrial dispute, because failure to do so could result in a custodial sentence? This Bill is therefore completely unnecessary.
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree with my friend. We may not be in the same party, but we are in the same trade union.
These brave, hard-working men and women struck local life-and-limb deals on a trust-by-trust basis ahead of all the strikes. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says it is trust by trust, but it is the best way to ensure that the right care is provided, and those employers know that. When I was a home help, we always put patient care first. We negotiated to ensure minimum safety levels, which is more than I can say for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, under whose watch we have seen excess deaths and an increasing crisis in the NHS.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I, too, declare an interest. As a proud trade unionist and trade union lawyer for many years before entering Parliament, I represented striking workers day in, day out. I know that no worker takes the decision to strike lightly. These strikes have been caused by the cost of living crisis caused by this Conservative Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Bill is just a further attack on workers’ rights, like the anti-trade union legislation passed by this Government in 2016? It is just another attack on working people who keep us safe, day in and day out.
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree. People watching this debate can see from the Secretary of State’s opening remarks, and from his previous remarks, what this is: a smokescreen about allegedly needing minimum service levels. We know that because, last autumn, his own Government assessed that minimum service levels were not needed for the emergency services due to existing regulations and voluntary arrangements. We all want minimum standards of safety, service and staffing levels, and we want them every day, but it is the Minister who is failing to provide them. Instead of holding them to account, they Government are seeking through this Bill to grab sweeping new powers to impose burdens on employers and to remove basic rights from workers across our public service. This is an attack on every nurse, health worker and firefighter in the country. They have gone from clapping nurses to sacking them.
Charlotte Nichols
My mam is a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, as I have previously noted in the House. It is interesting to hear what the Secretary of State says about the need for this Bill and legislation more widely because he was previously Secretary of State for Transport, and the only negotiations that have not been settled with the RMT are the ones in which the Department for Transport is involved. Every other dispute with the RMT has been resolved. So is this Bill not just covering up his failure to negotiate basic trade union agreements?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend makes some important points. We can all see from the reports on the negotiations that there was genuine hope we could get to a settlement, and then the Government decided to bring in new conditions at the last minute to make sure that the dispute continued. It is the Government, not the trade unions, who are acting militantly and who do not want to resolve these disputes.
The Government should also reflect on the key workers and other workers who will be affected by this strike action, and who the Secretary of State says are putting lives at risk. Even if they are not a key worker, I am pretty certain that most people, like my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), have a friend, relative or someone they know who is. We all think they are heroes, and we all know they have their patients, the people they look after and the services they provide at the forefront of their mind.
No one wants to take strike action, least of all the workers who lose a day’s pay. I have long urged Ministers to do their job and resolve the underlying problems, but instead they have presented a Bill that tries to remove hundreds of thousands of workers’ historic right to withdraw their labour.
If the Secretary of State for Transport mandates that 50% of trains need to run on strike days, he knows that Network Rail will mandate that all signal operators need to work, because signals are needed even if just two trains are running. How can the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy say this Bill does not remove their right to strike? I know many Conservative Members will say that they respect, even champion, civil liberties, and I am sure they mean it, but with this Bill they are burning the freedoms for which we fought for centuries and are handing to Ministers unprecedented power over the individuals who are targeted. It is not just wrong in principle; it is unworkable in practice.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I declare my interest as a proud trade unionist. I meet striking workers on an almost weekly basis at the moment, and I know that working people are often targeted by employers during a dispute. This Bill hands employers the right to decide which worker goes to work and which worker can go on strike. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that this could allow bad bosses to victimise and target workers?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
This legislation
“is not a solution to dealing with the industrial action we see at the moment.”
Those are not my words but the words of the Transport Secretary in December. This Bill could increase the frequency of strikes and the
“numbers of staff taking action short of striking”
and lead to employers finding that they are “low on staff.” Again, those are not my words but the words of the Department for Transport’s impact assessment. Minimum service levels are “not a game-changer” and could
“promote more industrial action than they mitigate.”
That is not me speaking but the senior Conservative adviser who developed the policy. The jury is in. These measures will not work, cannot work and will only make things worse.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I remind the House that we have a number of sectors in the UK in which employees are not allowed to strike, namely the armed forces and the police. These people always turn up, often at times of crisis, and work without complaint to provide minimum service levels, and they do it on pay and conditions that are often inferior to what the unions are currently demanding. May I ask the right hon. Lady to present an argument for why this provision should not be extended elsewhere?
Angela Rayner
I am glad the hon. Gentleman got the crib sheet from the Whips. There is a complete and utter lack of clarity about what these measures will mean for the six sectors to which they will apply. In nuclear decommissioning, for example, staff already have voluntary arrangements. How will Ministers define minimum service in this sector? Will they require just a teeny bit of decommissioning? What about health? Will Ministers seriously sack doctors, nurses, paramedics and vital support staff at a time of critical NHS staff shortages? Apparently not, if the Government sources reported this week can be believed. Does the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy deny that the Health Secretary has told others to lobby the Prime Minister for improved pay offers? And can he really say that the Health Secretary believes this Bill will help the NHS?
The Bill states that all transport services will be covered, but the industry is largely in the private sector. Does the Secretary of State expect, for example, self-employed cabbies to serve work notices to themselves? There seem to be a split here, too; I hear that the Transport Secretary has given rail companies permission for new pay offers, and we already know his views on minimum service levels.
Let us move on to education. Will our overstretched headteachers be forced to write and serve work notices in their own staffrooms? Does the Business Secretary agree with the Education Secretary that imposing these regulations on schools would be a hostile act?
Let us turn to fire and rescue services. Has austerity not already made it impossible for some services to meet existing contingency regulations as it is? Will the Business Secretary of State leave it there, or will he just go for broke and ban all key workers from joining a union at all? That is something we know his desperate Prime Minister has been considering.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
The right hon. Lady mentions the issue of pay and speaking to unions to resolve this dispute. Can she tell us what level of pay she thinks, and the Labour Front-Bench team believe, is appropriate? Would it be in line with inflation? Would it be more than inflation? How exactly would Labour solve this dispute?
Angela Rayner
I will just educate the hon. Gentleman: although I used to be a trade union official and I am a member of a trade union, I do not negotiate on behalf of a trade union. But what I would do is sit around the table and resolve this dispute with the trade unions. That would be better than what the Conservatives have done.
I come to the liability this Bill places upon trade unions. It says that trade unions must take “reasonable steps” to ensure workers comply with work notices, but what would they be? Will trade unions be liable for non-union staff? As for the burden put on employers, have they welcomed the bureaucratic nightmare that they will face? How will our already overstretched public services spare the resources to work out how many workers are needed to meet the minimum service levels the Secretary of State arbitrarily imposes on them, and to identify which workers should come into work and which should not? What will these bodies have to do? Will they have to do this before each and every strike day?
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
I would like to try again on this, because the right hon. Lady aspires to be Deputy Prime Minister and wants to negotiate with the unions in future. Will she outline for the House, because the Labour party has been very quiet on this, whether she backs a 19% pay increase for nurses? What costing has her party put forward as to how much she would award in pay rises to those public sector workers?
Angela Rayner
What I can say is that the Labour party would not have crashed the economy like the Conservatives did. We would not have inflation at the record levels we have at the moment. We would not have the disputes we have at the moment because we would negotiate with the trade unions and find a settlement.
What protections are in place to prevent unscrupulous employers from targeting trade union members with work notices? Or is this legislation a licence for blacklisting? The Secretary of State is hiding behind warped misunderstandings of the International Labour Organisation’s statute book and misleading comparisons with Europe. The ILO says that minimum service levels can happen only when the
“safety of individuals or their health is at stake”.
Can he explain how that relates to the list of sectors in the Bill? This Bill also makes no provision for the compensatory measures the ILO requires alongside such regulations. Countries such as France and Spain may have minimum service levels, but they have not averted strikes there; both lose far more days to strike action than the UK.
This Bill is a mess. It makes no sense. It has more holes in it than the last Chancellor’s Budget, yet we are being given next to no time to scrutinise it. This legislation hands far-reaching powers to the Secretary of State to not just impose minimum service levels, but decide what those levels would be. The legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg has called clause 3
“a supercharged Henry VIII clause.”
Where is the consultation the Secretary of State promised? Where is the impact assessment? The Regulatory Policy Committee says, in a scornful statement today, that it has not even received it yet. So why have the Government given only five hours for debate on the Floor of the House?
Let us look at what this Bill 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’ lives because they cannot stomach negotiation; a Government desperately doing all they can to distract from the economic emergency they have caused. We have had 13 years of failure, and working people of this country cannot take any more. What this whole sorry episode makes clear is that this country needs a Labour Government. The Conservative party has proven itself incapable of cleaning up its own mess, and the disruption of the past few months simply would not be happening under Labour.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
It is difficult to listen to the Secretary of State accuse workers who have devoted their lives to life saving, whether they are fire workers, doctors or nurses, of putting others at risk. As for the arguments that this is too expensive or too difficult, today Oxfam announced that $21 trillion went into the pockets of 1% internationally during the global pandemic. Does the right hon. Lady agree that there is enough money but it is just in the wrong pockets?
Angela Rayner
The hon. Gentleman makes some important and valid points. In the past 12 months to two and a half years, we have seen the unravelling of the VIP fast-track lane for people linked to the Conservative party—that was a waste of billions of pounds that could have gone into investment in our public services. The public have seen 13 years of Conservative failure. Most of the public who are watching this debate today can ask themselves one question: do they feel better off after 13 years of the Conservatives? The answer to that question is no, unless of course they are in that 1%, with a WhatsApp number of a Government Minister.
Labour would have resolved these disputes a long time ago, by getting back around the negotiating table in good faith and doing a deal.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour Government in Wales were given more than £1 billion for personal protective equipment and test, track and trace, and spent only £500 million? If we had had that level of savings, instead of having Tory crony donors putting their hand in the till, it would have aggregated up to a saving of £11 billion, as against a total pay cost to the NHS of £56 billion? In other words, we are talking about 20% of the annual pay for all nurses and all health workers. So does she not agree that if we had a Labour Government, we would have more money to provide decent wages for those in our health service?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; not only would we have grown the economy—and we have a plan to grow the economy, unlike the Conservatives —but we would not have wasted billions of pounds and we would not have crashed the economy like the Conservatives did.
This Government are not working and this Bill is unworkable. The sacking nurses Bill is one of the most indefensible and foolish pieces of legislation to come before this House in modern times. It threatens teachers and nurses with the sack during a recruitment and retention crisis, and mounts an outright assault on the fundamental freedom of working people, while doing absolutely nothing to resolve the crisis at hand. We on these Benches will vote against this shoddy, unworkable Bill, and I urge every Member across this House who cares for fundamental British freedoms, and who knows that the only way to resolve disputes is by negotiating in good faith, to join us in standing against it this evening.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). It was somewhat inevitable that this debate would quickly become partisan, and she reinforced that.
I pay tribute to our hard-working frontline public sector workers. On Friday, I visited workers at the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, who have not been on strike, and all credit to them. In the operational control centres, people have been working diligently, day in, day out, to manage, quite frankly, the many, many challenging cases.
This House will understand my particular interest in operational frontline workers, especially when it comes to the police, who cannot strike, and also fire and rescue workers and Border Force officers. Just last year, I was able to use existing Home Office budgets to provide the police with a pay increase. It was a 5% pay increase across the board and one of the largest settlements in the public sector. I accepted the recommendation from the Police Remuneration Review Body, and it was my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who is in his place, who oversaw that settlement. That funding was vital because we on the Conservative Benches believe in our frontline public sector workers. We believe in giving them the resources that they need and the working conditions in which they can do their jobs, but within the affordability of the Government’s financial envelope, which is incredibly important.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Secretary of State’s own colleagues—the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Education—believe that the Bill will not solve the strikes?
Priti Patel
I say to the hon. Lady and to all Members in the House that we are facing fundamental economic challenges right now, and they have to be met within the financial envelope of this Government. That is a statement of the obvious. At the end of the day, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that certain levels of service are provided in key sectors and in our public services, and rightly so. The public expect that, and the Government have a responsibility to oversee that and ensure that these levels of services help to protect and safeguard lives, keep our country safe, support the economy and ensure that the British public—the silent, hard-working majority—can go about living their lives in the way that we all want to see.
Obviously, the current wave of strikes and industrial action is concerning the public; it is also counterproductive when it comes to delivering public services. We have seen the level of disruption that is taking place. It cannot be right that, in the 21st century, our great country and our economy are put at risk by strike action. We have seen that on our borders; border control is being weakened by strikes. Patients and those in need of essential medical care are facing disruption. That is not right. All of us have constituents. This is not about one constituency against another, or one part of the country against the other. We have seen commuters who cannot get to work. That is wrong. We have seen businesses and, in Essex, small and medium-sized enterprises, operating on tight margins—not glitzy corporations—now suffering because of the strikes. Again, that is not right.
I know that many workers—I think that we all know this—find the decision to go out on strike very difficult. They struggle when it comes to voting in ballots because of the options that are sometimes put in front of them. We also know that there are some in the trade union movement—we must recognise this and we have heard it already from those on the Opposition Benches—who are happy to go along with the disruption, which is not acceptable. Some get satisfaction out of this. I am afraid that we have seen that in the past. We have seen Opposition Members go on picket lines and cheer and make political points. That is not right, because, at the end of the day, it is the public who suffer.
Indeed, since 2010, we have seen the hard left and militants take action and co-ordinate strikes, and the public suffer. That is not right. Let us not forget that it was the Conservatives who, in the 1980s, stood up to the militant trade unions, and, importantly, introduced reforms.
Several hon. Members rose—
Priti Patel
I do not have time to give way.
It is reform that we should be talking about today—reform that can lead to better public service delivery, changes to our laws—
Several hon. Members rose—
Priti Patel
I cannot give way, because I do not have time.
Importantly, I wish to press the Government to consider widening the list of sectors where minimum service standards are needed. I wish to ask the Government to ensure that they always look to keep legislation and measures open and under review, so that we can continue to uphold standards to protect the public going about their daily lives.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said that this was a partisan debate. Of course it is a partisan debate, because we either believe in the right of workers to strike or we do not, so, clearly, it is a partisan debate. She spoke about SMEs struggling because of strikes. I can tell her that SMEs in my constituency are more worried about their energy bills going through the roof and the lack of Government support that is coming down the line from April onwards.
We know that this is “anti-strike legislation”—those are not my words, but the words of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland from the Dispatch Box last week at Scotland questions. He boasted that his Government were introducing “anti-strike” legislation in a rare bit of honesty from the Dispatch Box.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy keeps going on about minimum ambulance cover, but the reality is that this is an attack on millions of public sector workers. The explanatory notes tell us that this is a Tory manifesto commitment about tackling transport strikes. Although the Conservatives might hide behind that manifesto commitment, that commitment has nothing to do with clamping down on the NHS or on teachers. The Conservatives claim that it is about safety, but, as I said earlier, the word “safety” is not used once in the Bill or in explanatory notes. The reality is that this is an ideological war on the unions, which the Tories somehow think will curry favour with the public. It is a misty-eyed look back to Margaret Thatcher taking on the National Union of Mineworkers. It was a battle that she won, but it was a battle that resulted in the closures of mines and left communities devasted and thousands of workers on the dole. Do we really want to go back to sacking workers and putting them on the dole? That is what this is all about.
We know that this is an ideological war, because, in this period of Tory governance, the Government have already given us the Trade Union Act 2016, introducing voting thresholds, and then, last year, the legislation to allow employers to hire agency staff to break strikes. There is no doubt that this Government want to end strikes, effectively removing the ultimate backstop on collective bargaining.
The Bill not only facilitates an attack on workers, but enables employers to potentially sue unions for damages. It is no wonder that it is opposed by the TUC, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Unison, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing among others, and I certainly support them in opposing this.
The legislation is nothing more than an attack on democracy—an attack on the rights of workers to withdraw their labour, and a further attack on devolution. Neither the Scottish Government nor the Welsh Government want this legislation, but, yet again, this legislation will be imposed on the devolved nations. In Scotland, this is further proof that the Westminster straitjacket does us no good at all. We could have had employment and workers’ rights devolved, but, unfortunately, Labour resisted those powers coming to Scotland. However, even the STUC has now called for the devolution of employment rights to Scotland, so perhaps Labour should consider that, instead of listening to Gordon Brown’s rehash of broken promises.
It is worth noting that the Bill does not impact Northern Ireland, as employment law is already devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, so, yet again, the so-called most powerful devolved Parliament in the world—the Scottish Parliament—has fewer powers than the Northern Ireland Assembly, and this proves it.
This ideological attack comes from someone who, as Transport Secretary, was non-existent when it came to dialogue and communications, and that was confirmed by the unions. He was somebody who was blocking the DFT from agreeing deals, and now we have that same person in post leading the charge for anti-strike and anti-worker legislation. Given the Secretary of State’s form, we know that he is up for a fight, but even if wins this fight, he will be destroying worker relationships for good. These are hard-pressed workers, particularly from within the NHS, who are struggling at times with the pressures that they are under. Who seriously thinks that not negotiating and threatening workers with the sack for striking will help matters? It is utterly insane. As the rail unions pointed out at the Transport Committee last week, deals have been agreed where DfT and UK Ministers are not involved. Clearly the union asks cannot be too unreasonable, when RMT and ASLEF have agreed deals with ScotRail and the Scottish Government, deals in Wales and deals with Merseyrail, for example—deals with Governments and authorities that have been hamstrung by the Tory austerity imposed on them, yet still managed to agree deals.
The Tories tell us they are the party of workers. That phrase fools no one, but they also tell us they are all about a high-wage, skilled economy. Yet, as we have heard, when workers ask for a wage rise they are told no, that it is unaffordable; even worse, in the case of the rail unions, the Secretary of State quotes figures that he thinks show how well paid all rail staff are. That is really telling: the Secretary of State is effectively saying, “Train drivers are overpaid—how dare they ask for a wage rise?”. That is insulting beyond belief.
The Tories can forget saying they want a high-wage economy. They were quite happy for the rail companies to pay dividends during the pandemic. They were quite happy for Virgin Trains East Coast to walk away from the London North Eastern Railway franchise owing billions of pounds, but they always go for attacking workers.
It is the same with the Secretary’s rhetoric about this legislation mirroring what happens elsewhere in Europe. His soundbites are easily proven to be false. Indeed, the general secretary of the European Federation of Public Service Unions, Jan Willem Goudriaan, argued that comparison by the UK Government of this Bill with existing laws in other EU countries was misrepresenting the situation, because all minimum service levels in Europe are agreed through negotiation. Moreover, the general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation, Esther Lynch, said:
“The UK already has among the most draconian restrictions on the right to strike in Europe, and the UK government’s plans would push it even further away from normal, democratic practice across Europe”.
Pablo Sánchez Centellas, a spokesperson for the EPSU, was much more succinct, saying, “It’s bollocks.” The Secretary of State should reflect on the true position of this proposed legislation compared with what is happening in Europe.
It also seems that this legislation is in breach of article 11 of the European convention on human rights, especially with regard to proportionate action. Richard Arthur, head of trade union law at Thompsons Solicitors, said the Bill raised,
“very serious legal question marks”,
and anticipates legal challenges under article 11 of the ECHR and convention 87 of the International Labour Organisation. He has also rightly pointed out that the human rights memorandum that accompanied the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill set out reasons why minimum service levels were not justified in fire services, health settings or education, yet that is what the Government now propose. By default, this Government are now going against their own previous human rights opinion. What kind of madness is that?
When it comes to the International Labour Organisation, which the Secretary of State likes to reference, its idea of minimum service requirements is clearly intended to be based on endangerment to life, personal safety or health. This wide-ranging legislation goes way beyond those parameters. The ILO makes it clear there should be an independent arbitration body, yet this Bill is completely silent on such a body. Why is that?
It is also clear that any minimum service level is supposed to be just that—a bare minimum. We have no idea what this Government will railroad through via statutory instruments. Statutory instruments cannot be amended and the last time a Government was defeated on a statutory instrument was in 1979, so we know all power rests with the Government there.
As Liberty has observed, the Bill does not create any form of minimal service. Liberty also confirms that MPs debating this legislation on Second Reading will not know exactly what they are voting for, so all the Tory MPs in the Chamber who are going to take part in the debate and then trot through the Lobby will do so blind to what the future legislation and regulations on minimum service will look like. It is an affront to democracy. Any Tory MP who claims to care about parliamentary sovereignty cannot possibly vote for this Bill.
The Bill is made worse by the Henry VIII power that allows amendment and revocation even of future legislation not yet passed. We can see how the Government are ramming this Bill through Parliament with minimum scrutiny and a proposed programme motion allowing just five hours for Committee. It really is an assault on democracy. The fact that the Bill comes into effect immediately once passed, so that work notices and actions can be taken by employers for strikes that have already been voted through, shows just how ridiculous this assault on workers is.
The impact assessment for the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill observes that on a strike day in July 2022, 20% of rail services were still in operation. Right away that suggests to me that a minimum level of service was operating. What do the Tories really think a minimum service is, if 20% is not a bare minimum? There are huge ramifications here for rail workers overall, because if this Government force through a high threshold of minimum service, strikes by signalmen and track operatives will effectively be banned. A high minimum service will force all those guys to work to keep the tracks in operation and the trains running, effectively blocking strikes by the back door.
What will minimum service look like for teachers? Where does that fit in with all the talk about safety? What happens to train companies that cannot provide a minimum service at the moment, especially if union members decide not to work on their rest days and to work to rule? Where will that leave this Government on minimum service level obligations?
The overview in the explanatory notes makes it clear that the ability to sack workers is a key aspect of the Bill. That is the polar opposite of what was said when a transport strike Bill was listed in the Queen’s Speech in December 2019, when it was stated that workers would not be discriminated against. Why are the Government now threatening people’s livelihoods?
Despite what the Secretary of State says, it is also clear that this legislation will allow employers to target those they think are part of an awkward squad. Allowing employers to decide who has to work on notified strike days clearly infringes on workers’ rights to withdraw labour. Instead of the illegal blacklisting previously done by some companies, employers now can name workers they want to break a strike, and sack those workers if they stay true to their beliefs. How can that be deemed acceptable?
The sacking aspect is the proof that this is nothing to do with minimum cover by ambulance staff, as the Secretary of State likes to tell us. It also ignores the fact that section 240 of the 1992 Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) keeps saying, allows for preserving life and limb, and that unions have their own practices to comply with that legislation. For fire services, the Secretary of State could also utilise the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, if he felt the desire to do so.
It is crystal clear that this legislation is not required. It is an attack on democracy and the right to strike; it will prolong industrial disputes, not resolve them; it will allow individual workers to be targeted through work notices; and it is politically stupid. We have to wonder why this Tory Government are looking to antagonise something like 7 million workers across these sectors. It also shows an astonishing level of incompetence to bring in legislation that potentially allows them to sack essential workers in vital sectors where there is already a shortage of skilled workers.
The public can see through a Government who partied while clapping the nurses and now threaten them with the sack. They should follow the lead of the Scottish Government and get around the negotiating table. The resolution of the ScotRail dispute has been commended by both the RMT and ASLEF. There are no strikes planned in the health service in Scotland and the pay deal being implemented by the Scottish Government is one that the UK Government should replicate as a starting point when they get around the negotiating table.
It is outrageous that the Scottish Government, who have been negotiating in good faith with the unions, will now have this legislation foisted upon them—legislation that Westminster could use to force work notices through in Scotland against the wishes of the Scottish Government and that could ruin otherwise good working relationships in Scotland. Employment law should be devolved to Scotland, but even that would now just be a sticking plaster. It is perfectly obvious that what Scotland now needs is the full powers of a normal, independent country.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate as Chair of the Transport Committee, and I will focus my comments on that particular sector.
Let me say at the outset that I support the objective behind the Bill. It does not strike me as unreasonable to seek a mechanism whereby the right of a worker to strike, which I have no quibble with, is balanced against the equally important right of an individual to go about their daily life, to travel to work, for healthcare, for education, to visit loved ones or for any of the millions of other reasons why people travel about. It is therefore appropriate to find a mechanism by which those two rights can be reconciled.
There are, however, a number of practical issues that I will put on the record. I understand that this is framework legislation and that the detail on how it will operate in the transport sector will follow. I was heartened to hear that the consultation on the rail side of transport will be in place before the Bill completes its parliamentary passage. There are some issues that have to be clarified and resolved before the Bill can properly take effect.
As has already been alluded to, it is possible in rail, for example, for parts of the system to operate at a minimum level. One train an hour could run from London to Manchester instead of three—there are a number of ways to have that reduction in service. But some parts of the system are binary: a signal box is either open or closed; and in aviation, an air traffic control centre is either open or closed. We need clarity on where the minimum level of service will apply.
A related point is whether every aviation, railway or bus line and service will have a minimum service or just a percentage of overall capacity. There is a trade-off to be made. If another line operates nearby, does that mean that both lines have to operate a minimum service, or would one have a more regular service? Those are the trade-offs that will have to be made.
In the current dispute on the railways, Network Rail and the train operating companies have a degree of flexibility in making decisions on which lines and stations will be open. Will what they have to cover now be specified in the regulations, or will they be left with some discretion?
Iain Stewart
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have only a minute left and many Members wish to speak.
My last point is about what will be covered by the definition of “transport services”. There are the traditional ones that we all assume will be covered—trains, buses, flights, ferries and the like—but what about some of the other modes of transport, such as cycle hire or taxi services? What does the definition encompass?
I will ask my Committee, when we meet later this week, if we can usefully contribute to the consultation, but I thought it would be helpful in this part of the debate to set out some of the questions that will have to be addressed as the Bill goes through. The objective of the Bill is absolutely right: we have to balance the right to strike with the right of people to go about their way of life.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of Unite the union.
May I start by correcting the public record? As always, I am grateful to Ministers for taking the time to speak with me directly about Bills in my capacity as Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. Unfortunately, in a Westminster Hall debate on Thursday, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), referenced our discussion without giving me advance notice. He said that I was
“very supportive of a minimum service level”.—[Official Report, 12 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 372WH.]
Let me be very clear to the House, to the Minister and to my constituents: I am against the Bill and will vote against it this evening. What I said to the Minister was that I—and, I am sure, many people—think it reasonable for there to be a minimum level of service from our emergency services during a period of strike action, and I encouraged him to pursue that via discussion with the relevant services and trade unions, not by threatening them with the prospect of an effective statutory ban on their right to strike.
When I asked the Minister whether he had sought to achieve that before introducing the legislation, he was unable to fully answer my question. As we have already heard this evening, the rationale for the Bill is therefore in question. The Government say that the legislation in place is not effective and that voluntary agreements cannot be sought, but that is not correct. Indeed, in signing off the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill and its compliance with the European convention on human rights, even the Government said:
“In the case of other key public services, important factors exist to mitigate the impacts of industrial action”.
So what has changed?
As we have already heard, section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 makes it a criminal offence and a breach of employment contract to strike if doing so puts someone’s life in danger or puts them at risk of serious injury. That is why we have statutory guidance in place across public services, and it is why trade unions put life-and-limb service provision in place when they organise strikes with management.
On voluntary agreements, in December last year and this month, such agreements have been put in place. Unison and GMB told me that they limited strike action to six or 12 hours instead of 24 hours, that there were procedures for bringing workers back from the picket line if they were needed on the ward, and that they monitored call volumes in real time to ensure that patients were kept safe. As far as I am aware—from speaking with striking nurses at Southmead Hospital in my constituency, and later with senior management—there were no problems with those voluntary service arrangements, so the law is in place, voluntary agreements are in place, and there is no rationale for the Bill. We can therefore only conclude that it is a negotiating tactic—a threat—by the Government.
Lastly, my Committee was disappointed by the lack of time for scrutinising the Bill. Once again, Ministers have introduced primary legislation with wide-ranging discretionary powers for Ministers without publishing the details of vital secondary legislation in a timely manner. That is unacceptable. It is poor practice for Ministers to bring legislation to the House in that way. As the Regulatory Policy Committee confirmed for me today, the Government are obliged to publish an impact assessment so that that Committee can inform the House of the impact of legislation proposed by Ministers. However, Ministers have not given the Regulatory Policy Committee the time to review the Government’s impact assessment and then inform the House about the consequences of the legislation.
So not only do we have a Bill that has no evidence-based rationale for the need to legislate on voluntary agreements, but we have a Government rushing through the legislation without following due process and without drafting it to the standard that this House requires. It is clearly a rushed threat, it is unacceptable and it shows disregard for the House and the job that we have to do as parliamentarians to ensure that the law is passed effectively.
To summarise, can the Minister confirm that the Government will publish the statutory instruments and the impact assessment before the Bill finishes its passage through this House? I politely suggest that he may want to have another go at trying to explain to the House why the Bill is even necessary in the first place.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I stand to speak in favour of the legislation and to commend the Government for taking this difficult but necessary step.
Today I want to talk about duty. Through this legislation, we on the Conservative Benches are fulfilling our duty to protect our constituents. Those on the Labour Benches—in hock to their trade union masters—are failing theirs. Nurses, teachers, firefighters and all the other professions covered in the legislation are true heroes in our society. They carry out a great service to our communities. We must continue to focus on growing our economy to meet the wage demands of public sector workers, but we must also maintain the independence of pay review bodies precisely so that we can take the politics out of public sector pay. The conversation should also be about fairness and balancing the right to strike with the public’s right to be kept safe.
I understand the value of a trade union—I understand that workers may want to organise to protect pay and working conditions—but what we are seeing is hard-left leaders and militant trade unions taking advantage of economic difficulty to instigate what is effectively a rolling general strike. When those actions put lives at risk, we Conservatives know that we must take action.
A minimum service level need not be controversial. If the trade unions offer a safe level of service at the very least, there is no need to have a minimum service level. We saw that with the Royal College of Nursing, which maintained a safe level of service. That just goes to show how selfless and professional those nurses where while exercising their democratic right, and I am grateful to them for protecting the public. I certainly hope that, in the next independent pay review, we reach a positive result and avoid future strike action. The concept of minimum service levels is protected in article 11 of the ECHR and is endorsed by the International Labour Organisation. As we have already heard, this is no different from what is done in Italy, France and Spain.
In that light, I find the position of the Labour party quite astonishing. We all have a primary duty to protect our constituents and our communities. By opposing the legislation, the Labour party is, in my view, failing in that duty. To be frank, Labour has supported the strikes, whether implicitly or explicitly. At best, it has failed to take an appropriate stand against the trade unions; at worst, it is egging them on and relishing the disruption and division being caused. Is that what the modern Labour party stands for—closing down our schools, bringing our country to a standstill and threatening livelihoods? I know it is a new year, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is the same old Labour party.
We on the Government Benches will not compromise on our fundamental duty. We will do all we can to protect our constituents, our communities and our society. That is why I endorse the Bill.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
I direct the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a proud trade union member.
The Government are on a mission to take power from the people, with restrictions on the right to protest, restrictions on democracy with voter ID, the removal of huge chunks of human rights through their Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill—that will scrap more than 4,000 pieces of legislation, many of which cover the basic rights of people in this country—and now this disgraceful attempt to criminalise workers taking legitimate industrial action.
Each of those power grabs commits political violence on our communities. As with most of this Government’s policies, this attempt to deny workers what is universally regarded as a fundamental human right seeks to divide communities and pit worker against worker, forcing some of them to walk past their colleagues and cross picket lines—although everyone here knows that I never have and never will cross a picket line.
Kate Osborne
No. This Government are turning back the clock not just on workers’ rights but on the rights of the vast majority of this country. As always, Ministers are only concerned about making money for their cronies and big business.
My constituents have been in touch with me over the last few days to express how angry and disappointed they are at the Government’s handling of these disputes. While I have time, I would rather say what my constituents want me to say than hear what Conservative Members want to say. My constituent Robert Best from Boldon emailed me yesterday:
“The Government should be finding ways to help striking workers, rather than remove their right to strike! Right now, refusing to negotiate with workers is the last thing our country needs.”
Robert is, of course, completely correct. The Government should be negotiating, not legislating. Workers need a pay rise, not a P45.
Last week, in a question to the Business Secretary, I referenced the struggles of the Tolpuddle martyrs and the seven men of Jarrow—people who were criminalised 200 years ago for fighting for basic health and safety and pay. The response I got was that I should stop “raving on”. I will not stop raving on. I will not stop supporting workers and the people in my community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. Will she point out where there are any criminal sanctions attached to the proposed legislation? As far as I can see, there are absolutely none. It is important that we do not scaremonger in that way.
Kate Osborne
If we attack the trade unions, which are made up of members who are workers, then we are attacking the workers.
The Government’s proposed legislation and the response I just got show the contempt in which they hold working people. The Government do not care about working people. They do not care about our communities who are struggling to survive in the face of unaffordable food and energy bills, and struggling to deal with the cost of living crisis and 13 years of cuts by the Conservative party. We already have the most restrictive workers’ rights in western Europe, and it is an affront to democracy that this Government are trying to restrict them further.
Of course, the Government know that the Bill is not workable. It will be held up in the other place, if it gets that far, and in the courts. They only care about attention-grabbing headlines—about moving the Overton window so the people of this country will accept more and more restrictions on their rights.
Minimum service levels already exist: our NHS teams ensure that priority calls are dealt with, and teachers ensure that special educational needs children are catered for. What we need is for the Government to provide a minimum service level every day. We hear daily of workers struggling to cope with current staffing levels. The Government should be looking at ways to address the NHS staffing crisis, not making it worse.
The Government need to accept that the reason so many sectors are saying “enough is enough” and taking industrial action—we heard the announcement today that the teaching unions will take action, and I send my solidarity to them—is the Government’s failures. The firefighters, NHS staff, transport staff and education staff that the Bill targets are the very people who saw us through the pandemic. If the Bill passes, no doubt the Government will eventually seek to apply the legislation to workers in more sectors. Instead of inflaming the situation, they should start dealing with the causes of increased strike action: low wages, fuel and food poverty, and cuts to public services.
The Bill is part of the Government’s plan to restrict all our rights and to demonise and criminalise those who are just trying to survive. As I said at the start, it is an act of political violence. The Government should do the right thing for the country and withdraw it.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
We have had so much disruption to our critical services in recent years, and I pay tribute to all those working in those sectors.
I support minimum service levels for our critical services. Who could oppose them? Well, the Labour party does. It says it is protecting workers’ rights, but does that not ignore the rights of all of those who rely on these key services for their health, their education and their livelihood?
We have seen the sad impact on pupils of disruption to education, the extra burden it places on families and schools, and the anxiety that causes parents and students. The Children’s Commissioner highlighted this weekend that it is the most disadvantaged who face the greatest impact if education is disrupted. I support the right of children to a great education, but the Labour party opposes minimum service levels. It says it is protecting workers’ rights, but that ignores the rights of working families and students if schools close.
Minimum service levels should also apply to our ambulance service. We all know the challenges our NHS is facing, yet at a time when we need to focus on addressing them, Labour opposes minimum service levels for our ambulance and fire services. Does anyone really believe it should be up to intransigent unions to decide whether help arrives? Emergency services should not be a bargaining chip in employment disputes. Our country cannot be held to ransom by intransigent unions. I believe the NHS should be there when we need it, but the Labour party opposes minimum service levels. It says it is protecting workers’ rights, but what about the right to receive care in an emergency?
The rail strikes are yet another example. I have been contacted by constituents whose children are unable to get to school, commuters unable to get to work, and patients unable to see their loved ones in hospital or go to appointments. I support everyone’s right to travel, but the Labour party opposes minimum service levels. It says it is protecting workers’ rights, but what about the rights of the self-employed? Are they not workers? What about the rights of small business employees? Are they not workers? What about the rights of drivers? Are they not workers? What about cleaners, administrators or carers—or any worker in a sector not supported by unions?
I was elected to this House to represent all my constituents, and that means protecting health services, education and livelihoods. In the light of union intransience to negotiate and modernise, minimum service levels are now needed, so I wholeheartedly support the Bill. I am genuinely appalled that the Labour party opposes minimum service levels. It says it is protecting workers’ rights. I think we all know who it is really protecting.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Let me start by declaring an interest: I am a proud member of both Unite the union and GMB and, prior to being elected to this place, I worked for Unite the union for over a decade. I know from first-hand experience the amazing work that trade unions do in representing their members in the workplace. Contrary to what some Conservative Members may have us believe, trade unions want their workplaces to thrive. They know that a productive workplace needs a happy, motivated workforce. They know that, when companies make large profits, they can ask for decent pay rises for their members. When workplaces struggle, they will work with the employer to ensure it survives. We all know how public sector workers kept our country moving during the pandemic. They worked night and day to keep us safe, but how does this Government seek to repay them? First, with a derisory pay offer and then— because the unions have voted to strike, rather than roll over and accept the derisory pay offer—the Prime Minister has resorted to launching a fundamental attack on workers’ freedoms. This Bill is unworkable and impractical.
The fact is that minimum service levels do not stop strikes in Europe. Between 2010 and 2020, France lost almost six times as many days to strikes as the UK, and Spain lost more than twice as many. Ironically, we already have minimum service levels in place in the UK. These are negotiated between the unions and the employers. I remember when I joined a picket line with striking firemen and women, and they told me how they had agreed with their employer that, if there was any fire or any other emergency, they would jump into the fire engines and be straight there. None of them wanted to see anyone lose their lives because of their action, which was their last resort. They ensured there was a mutual voluntary agreement not through legislation, but through negotiation—something that we all know happens right the way through the public sector.
Most worryingly, the Bill does not give any indication of what will constitute a minimum level of service, meaning that the Secretary of State will be able to change that at their discretion. Having stretched public services and the workforce to breaking point, the Government’s solution is to create conditions in which workers can be forced into work and are unable to withhold their labour, no matter what the employee does. Is that really the kind of Britain of which we want to be part—one in which workers’ freedoms are being restricted to the extent that they could be sacked for standing up for their rights?
Chris Loder
What would the hon. Lady say to those members of the RMT who decided to come back to work before Christmas because they did not agree with what the union was doing?
Vicky Foxcroft
That is democracy. Trade unions are subject to the most vigorous legislation when they are balloting and trade union money is the cleanest money in politics. Public sector workers are proud of the role they play in society, saving and protecting lives, but they need to be valued and their voices matter. When our NHS workers say they are worried about public health and the NHS, we need to listen, not curtail the right for their voices to be heard. The Government could and should have negotiated with the trade unions to get a decent settlement. They need to listen closely to the concerns that workers across the country have been raising. I thoroughly believe that, when we work together, we achieve better outcomes. Trade union rights are human rights. I defend their right to strike and I will be voting against this Bill.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I would like to accept the invitation of the shadow Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who encouraged us to be respectful in this debate. I wish to be so. We have heard a lot from the Labour party this evening about how the Bill is an act of political violence and an attack on the fundamental freedom of working people, but we have not heard an answer to the fundamental question that the legislation poses: do the British people have a right set out in statute to a basic safety and security guarantee during periods of strike?
Let us start with the law. The right to strike is embedded in international law, most notably in article 11 of the European convention on human rights.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Lady asks whether any of us on the Opposition Benches care about fundamental safety levels, and yes we do. She asked whether we would support legislating, but legislation already exists. On article 11, she knows as well as I do that the measures have to be “necessary”. The Government’s own memo with the last legislation said that the measures were not necessary in relation to the health service, education and fire and rescue.
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her point, and I will assist her, because I was coming on to that point. The article 11 right may be restricted for two reasons—if the restriction is necessary, yes, and proportionate. The International Labour Organisation, of which the United Kingdom is a founding member, recognises that maintaining a minimum level of service provision can be both when it comes to essential services. Its committee on freedom of association has expressly set out the two circumstances in which it may be appropriate: where strike action would pose a risk to life, safety or health; or where the service is not essential in the strict sense of the word, but where repeated strikes would bring a very important sector to a standstill.
Chris Stephens
The ILO also says, does it not, that the minimum service level has to be agreed by an independent arbiter if there is a dispute, which is not in the Bill, and that there should not be a dismissal, which is in the Bill?
Laura Farris
I am grateful to both SNP Members for their interventions. I am coming on to those points, so I will make a tiny bit of progress, if I may.
On the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), we already know that transport and education meet the ILO’s test, because the ILO told the United Kingdom that in its response to the challenge to the Trade Union Act 2016 submitted by the TUC in 2015. In its response, the ILO committee of experts—Members can look it up; it is on the website—said that in relation to transport and education
“recourse might be had to negotiated minimum standards for these sectors as appropriate”.
We also know that many comparable countries take a much tougher line than the Government are proposing. In the United States, to give one example, 38 out of 50 states ban public sector strikes altogether.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is presenting a reasoned case, but she knows, and she has just used the word, that these things should be negotiated. The measures in this Bill are by fiat of the Secretary of State.
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. I am coming to all these things, so if he will give me a moment, I will continue.
In the United States, 38 out of 50 states have an outright ban on public sector strikes, including New York. Other states, such as Canada, Australia, Italy and Spain, all have embedded in statute minimum service levels that apply to important public services, and those services are often drawn much more widely than the Government are proposing. They include waste collection, postal services, broadcast services, the administration of justice, water distribution and energy supply.
I pick out those states not as random examples, but because every single one is a member of the International Labour Organisation. They are bound by exactly the same rules as us, and they are among our closest comparators around the world. Even more importantly, the International Labour Organisation has adjudicated all their statutory minimum service levels, and a 2019 publication from the ILO in Geneva commented:
“These examples illustrate the wide diversity of approach that ILO member states have adopted to address the challenges posed by industrial disputes in essential services”.
Minimum service levels
“supported by the ILO’s supervisory organs, exist to manage the balancing act between these necessary restrictions and the individual worker’s fundamental labour rights”.
I have not heard a single Member of Parliament tonight explain to me why the ILO is wrong or why the Government are striking the wrong balance when they have a mandate for what they are doing.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
The disingenuousness comes from making comparisons with other nations under ILO regulations, which clearly have a completely different context. For example, the ILO imposes restraints on the circumstances in which such powers can be used, which is the antithesis of the Government’s blank cheque approach.
Laura Farris
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I take the opposite position. The United States has an outright ban on public service strikes in 38 states. In December, President Biden made his most recent intervention in union rights when he signed legislation that imposed an outright ban on a national railroad strike. The United States is a founder member, as we are, of the International Labour Organisation. It goes much further, but the ILO has found its ban to be lawful. The Opposition will have to say why all those comparable states, which go much further than us, are somehow acting lawfully, yet we are not.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
A lot of time is spent in courts in some countries arguing about minimum service level agreements. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud trade unionist: I worked for the GMB for more than a decade representing Members of Parliament, I am a member of Unite the union, and, after this debate, I might join a few more trade unions.
The Secretary of State took great joy in reading out how much hon. Members receive from trade unions, which is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) said, the cleanest money in politics. I wonder if, when he returns to his place, he will let the House know how much Michael Green, Corinne Stockheath and Sebastian Fox have received in payments.
In the short time that I have, I will talk about the Bill. It is dishonest; it is an insult to trade unions, which are the aspirational vehicle of the working class; and it is an insult to Parliament and parliamentary procedures. Most of the detail of the Bill is missing and the Government have said that they will add it later—that is not how we are supposed to do politics or make legislation. It contains wide, prospective Henry VIII powers, and as we saw during the pandemic, if we give the Government such powers, they abuse them—but they are putting them in legislation. It allows the Government to amend and revoke any future legislation passed in this Session, so what is the point of Parliament? No matter what we say or pass, the Government can turn around and say, “We want to change it,” or, “We want to revoke it.” That is against what every single Member of Parliament has been elected to do.
Ministers are trying to have power over Parliament—that is all the Bill is about—and to encourage employers to have power over workers. When I was a trade union official, it said on our office wall, “To make rich people work harder, they pay them more. To make poor people work harder, they try to pay them less.” Safety does not appear anywhere in the Bill. The House of Lords debated a report, “Democracy Denied?”, which said that we must rebalance power between Parliament and the Executive. The Government are asking Parliament to vote on a Bill that does not really exist, because there is no detail.
If the Government are serious about having minimum service levels, and if they are serious about negotiating, which nobody in the Government seems able to do, they should agree to compulsory arbitration or mediation to resolve disputes, but they are not interested in that. They are interested in trying to paint trade unions, which are the aspirational vehicle of the working class, in one light and themselves in another.
I say to the Government, however, that the public are not stupid and they see what the Government are doing by trying to take away their rights at every single level, including the right to protest and the right to vote. We see what the Government are doing and we will stand up and stop them at every opportunity.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I start by declaring that I am not a member of GMB, Unite the union or Unison—I apologise to Opposition Members if I have missed one out. My remarks relate to the transport industry, as I worked for the railways for 20 years before I was elected; indeed, I was previously a member of two trade unions.
I warmly welcome this important Bill. Those of us who are, and have been, sensible and constructive trade union members know that we can still take strike action without closing down the whole network or shutting down an entire operation. This whole debate is about balancing the right to strike with the right of our citizens to have access to key services when they need them—the right of citizens to get to work, the right of children to get to school, and the right of small business owners to continue their business.
Hard-working union members who feel pressured to strike, who believe that eight days of strikes in quick succession is too much, or who do not agree with having six days to respond to a ballot referendum instead of the standard 14, want the situation tempered and want their needs and rights to be recognised, rather than the ideological ones of trade unions. [Interruption.] I hear the moans of Opposition Members, but union members are fed up of being used as political pawns, which is why the strikes are breaking across the railway today. Individual members and individual areas are saying, “No. Enough is enough.”
Chris Loder
I am sorry; I will not give way to hon. Members, because I have to crack on.
These strikes are not a new or recent development. There have been constant strikes for more than six months among some groups and, in some locations, they have actually been going on for years. We are seeing a rampant appetite for industrial action. We know that is the case, because RMT members have been striking against themselves in the last 12 months. Last week, at the Transport Committee, it became clear that the head of the train drivers’ union not only is a Labour party member, but has a top seat on its executive ruling body. There is a close relationship between the Labour party and the trade unions, which is worth hundreds of thousands of pounds to individual Opposition MPs.
Sam Tarry
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for being honest about his trade union membership. I wonder what the hundreds of thousands of teachers who just voted to go on strike against his abominable Government think about being called political pawns, when they are striking to look after our children.
Chris Loder
I remind the hon. Gentleman that my remarks are about those in the transport industry who are in touch with me and those who represent them. I should say, however, that no teachers in my constituency have been in touch with me to tell me that. The Opposition should take note of that.
I will bring my remarks to a close. As I was saying, the relationship between the unions and individual Opposition Members is worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. The unions are showering the Opposition with hundreds of thousands—millions—of pounds as if it were confetti from the sky. It is absolutely outrageous. We have the privilege of being able to refer to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests when they speak in this House—that is all it takes. [Interruption.] It is all there; I assure hon. Members that there is no influence from trade unions in my entry.
The irony is that we know that Opposition Front-Bench Members have accepted the TUC’s invitation to go to Spain to talk about such things with Spanish unions and to work out how disruption can be caused in this country. There is so much to expose, but I am afraid that I do not have any time left, otherwise I would be happy to say more.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
It looks like being quite the week for the use of draconian anti-democratic powers by this Government. The restrictive anti-trade union legislation they pushed through in 2016 clearly was not enough for them, so now we see an unprecedented attack that will undermine the most basic of workers’ rights—the right to withdraw labour. The right to strike is essential for fairness in negotiations with employers and to protect workers from having appalling pay and conditions imposed on them. It is what differentiates modern Europe from the medieval serfdoms of the past.
Turning their backs on the fundamental tenets of democracy really is something this Government are getting far too used to doing. The more they get a taste for it, the further they want to go. We saw them illegally prorogue Parliament and push through Brexit, and now we see plans for a bonfire of thousands of EU regulations that protect our rights. We saw the attack on devolution through the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and now we see them block a democratic decision rightly taken in Holyrood, cranking up the disrespect yet another notch. We see their anti-protest laws becoming even more authoritarian, with plans for the police to arrest campaigners before they even have a chance to commit a crime, and now we have their anti-trade union agenda being taken to the next level with these blunt powers being brought forward to stop strikes.
The sweeping Henry VIII powers in the Bill, enabling Ministers to amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation not yet passed, should chill the heart of any democrat. It is ironic that a Government so keen to turn their back on Europe lean so heavily on their excuse, “But that is what other countries do”. It is also deeply disingenuous, and as Unison has rightly pointed out, countries being cherry-picked by the Government, such as Italy and France, come to voluntary agreements through collaborative processes and have far less restrictive measures in place than we currently see in the UK. They do not have unspecified minimum service levels imposed on them by an Executive, as this Bill would enable this Government to do. Strikes are not the cause of the problems we face here; they are a symptom of the deep-rooted damage that has been done to our public service by this Government. The fact is that nobody downs tools without very good cause, especially during a cost of living crisis.
Whatever motivation workers may have, they are under attack on all fronts by this Government, and I commend the unions for taking action to protect their members. If the Government continue to be determined to go down this destructive path, further damaging industrial relations, they must devolve employment law now, so that the Scottish Government have the powers they need to protect the rights of the people of Scotland from the damage of this Government. Workers are not just striking for themselves. They are striking for the very future of public services, which they witness being run into the ground. They are protecting the cohesion of our communities, the standards of living we should all be able to enjoy and the rights of all workers. I stand in solidarity with them, and I will always fight to protect the right to strike from irresponsible attacks such as this. This Bill should be refused any further consideration, and I urge every Member here tonight to stand against it and vote it down.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
May I first welcome you to your place, Mr Deputy Speaker? I place on record my thanks to all public sector workers for the excellent work they have done—not just during the pandemic, but for many years prior to it.
As we all know, the country is facing a difficult period of economic hardship. Yes, it is partly because of the war in Ukraine, and yes, it is partly because of our active response in the fight against the pandemic, but we need to be conscious that we are here to support workers, and not all workers are members of unions. It is fair and reasonable, and I always come back to the theme of being fair and reasonable, to suggest that some of this legislation—and I will be supporting the Bill—is about making sure there is a correct balance between those in the unions who wish to strike and those, who are a majority of my electorate, who continue either to run their own small companies or to work in smaller industries that rely on public services, such as the railway network.
As many Members will know—I have said this in this place before—while I represent quite a lovely constituency, public transport very much runs north and south, and when there are rail strikes, my constituents can get around only with extreme difficulty. While that may not necessarily hurt those who have the ability to access a car or, in extremis, pay for a little cab, those who we should be supporting the most are actually the ones most affected by this—the ones who are not able to use the bus to send their kids off to school or to get to their GP surgery for a doctor’s appointment.
Reference has been made to the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, which I know has had a really tough time over many years. I would like to place on record my thanks that it was not one of the bodies that had a strike over recent weeks. Unfortunately, I have had to use its services over the last few weeks and months, and I know that it is literally saving lives in doing the excellent work it does in very difficult circumstances.
One of the things I want to make the public aware of is that, post pandemic, we have adapted the way we work. Yes, we are very supportive of people such as rail workers, but the general population will adapt. I am a firm believer that we should be encouraging people to get back to work, which may mean commuting to London, as it does for a lot of my constituents. However, if that proves too difficult, they will just turn around and say, “Actually, we’ve already adapted, post pandemic, to working from home”. That means we will hollow out the urban areas of our country such as central London, where instead of a vibrant high street, as we have had with Victoria Street, we will very quickly have high street retailers, such as the Pret A Mangers of the world, closing up shop because they do not have the footfall to support them.
Reference has been made to international comparisons. I for one think we have got the balance right with our support for workers, but also, counter to that, for wealth creators. As someone who comes from a small and medium-sized enterprise background, I know that I was fully reliant on one, two or three workers in, in my case, a furniture retail shop, to make sure the business could run, and I could not have done it without them. They were not part of a union, but 80% of our economy is reliant on SMEs, so while unions are excellent in the work they do for large public sector bodies, other workers out there are not members of a union.
Finally, my great friend my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) mentioned that our armed forces and the police have not been able to strike for over 100 years. That system has worked, so I am not necessarily worried about this particular piece of legislation.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am proudly a trade union member, as will be no surprise to anybody. I will save the Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, time and say that the donation to me three years ago was actually my final month’s salary from the GMB. I would rather have clean donations from trade unions any day over anything that the Conservative party receives from non-doms.
The attacks on the rights and freedoms of our constituents are only becoming more apparent. Lutonians have written to me concerned about the plans to restrict their right to strike not just for themselves, but for the services they rely on. We are all desperate for our public services to be stronger, faster, more effective and cost-efficient, but it is not the fault of the selfless and hard-working key workers in our health, rail and teaching sectors that public services are in the skeletal state they are or that nurses are having to use food banks. It is the fault of 13 years of Tory Governments.
As for many others in this Chamber, the prosperity of public services and their workforce is personal for me. I was care worker, I worked in the fire brigade and I was a healthcare assistant doing shifts in hospitals. I have also been a trade union member for nearly 20 years, and I have been a trade union officer working on pro-manufacturing campaigns, bereavement leave for foster carers, stopping the abuse of agency workers, training airport staff and ensuring survivors of domestic abuse are safe at work. I say this not because it is particularly extraordinary, but because this is all in a day’s work for trade unionists, and Conservative Members should bear that in mind while they denigrate the work of trade unions.
This is not just political; it is also personal. My partner works in education, while my father was a firefighter and my mother was a nurse. They took great pride in their work, and so they should. When we face crises personally or nationally, it is these workers we rely on to keep us safe, to heal us, and to protect our homes and our loved ones. Why then are this Government determined to punish those workers with real-terms pay cuts, job losses, worse terms and uncertain futures, yet still reward bankers with unlimited bonuses?
Not only are British public service workers seeing their pay declining or their jobs cut, they are now told that they cannot speak up about it. The message to public sector heroes from this Bill is: “Put up and shut up”. Unfortunately for this Government, that is not the spirit of this country or of the party of these Benches. Our constituents know the value of their work, and they know the dignity they deserve. When it comes to civil liberties, oh, the Conservatives talk a good game about freedom of speech, but on the basic rights to strike and to protest, this Government—one of the most extreme Tory Governments—are on the wrong side every time. They fight for the rights of holocaust deniers, climate change sceptics, and out-and-out misogynists to say whatever they like online, in an effort to appear anti-woke and pro-freedom of speech, yet when it comes to the freedoms of nurses, teachers, doctors, paramedics, firefighters, support staff and healthcare assistants, the Conservatives are not on their side, and they do not want them to have the same freedoms as everyone else.
Ordinary working people such as the ones Ministers are now trying to gag fought for our rights—the right to maternity leave and bank holidays, the right to be safe at work and have equal pay, and the right to remove our labour. The right for people to have their voices heard when those in power are not listening. Time and again, the Tories show that they are on the wrong side. All they have to do is listen and negotiate. They are the reason why people need strong trade unions and a Labour Government, because the Tories will never be on the side of working people. I will always be on the side of working people, and I will vote against the Bill today.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
This is a debate about the balance of rights, and balancing the right to strike of our constituents who work in essential public services with the rights of our other constituents, and their right to get to work, to school, to have their operation, and even in the case of blue-light services, their right to life. That is what we are talking about. The Bill is not about views on the rights and wrongs of the current strikes. It is certainly not an attack on public sector workers, and suggestions otherwise from Labour Members are both disgusting and an attempt to stifle genuine debate.
I deeply value the work of nurses, teachers, firefighters, ambulance drivers and rail staff across Rushcliffe and the country, and of course they should have the right to withdraw their labour. The Bill is about how they can do so safely. The Labour party would have us believe that this is some outrageous attack on workers’ rights—“political violence”, said the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne)—and something that no civilised country could possibly contemplate. No civilised country other than Spain, Italy, Germany, France, or indeed the United States, Australia and Canada, which in some areas have an outright ban on strikes in blue-light services. Normally, Opposition Members idolise Europe’s approach to employment rights, but on the issue of minimum services they are keeping very quiet. Why? It is because their paymasters in the unions do not want to let them do otherwise. I understand, I do—[Interruption.] I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Sam Tarry
Most Labour Members will be proud of the fact that trade union members in their local branch meetings vote democratically to make donations to local Labour party Members of Parliament. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw that preposterous, outrageous and untrue comment.
Ruth Edwards
I certainly will not, because the hon. Gentleman failed to declare in his intervention that he received £13,000 from unions. I notice there are a lot of proud union members who are not declaring their donations. That is not me being party political—it is a requirement of this House.
I understand the position of Labour Members. It is not easy to turn round to the union barons who have given them and their colleagues more than £1 million in the past four years and tell them that they are wrong. The Bill builds on principles in the Trade Union Act 2016, which put higher vote thresholds on important public services when unions ballot on strike action. It builds on the principle of life-and-limb cover, and will prevent the situation that we had at the end of last year when different ambulance services had different agreements in place with unions. That resulted in a postcode lottery for patients, which is unacceptable.
The Bill complies with the criteria set out by the International Labour Organisation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) set out in detail. In short, the Bill sets out a pathway for workers to exercise their rights safely. It should not be controversial. It has precedent in the UK, all over Europe, and in international conventions. We are making the responsible choice to protect all our constituents. On the Opposition Benches, however, it may be a new year, but it is the same old Labour, still acting as the mouthpiece of their paymasters, the union barons. They have been bought by the barons, and are still doing their bidding.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in which Members will find no money from oligarchs, Saudi Arabia, oil barons or oil companies—nothing but from trade unions, and I am quite happy with that.
Here we are, a little more than 18 months since the end of lockdown, and the Government have gone from clapping to slapping key workers. It did not have to be this way. In the wake of covid, the Government had a choice. They could, like the 1945 Labour Government at the end of world war two, have chosen a new path, a different path, and a new social settlement that recognised the sacrifice and efforts of key workers. They could have rewarded them by embarking on collective sectoral bargaining, and invested in rebuilding our public services and in housing after more than a decade of decay. They could have built a new social settlement, recognising the role that those workers played in that national crisis. Instead, they chose to look to the first world war, and to the Geddes axe, when the post-war Conservative Government slashed public spending, attacked workers’ rights, and told the poor they and not the wealthy must bear the brunt of the costs of the war.
The Bill puts beyond a shadow of doubt whose side this Government are on. It is certainly not the public, because those public sector workers who are being denied their democratic rights are the public. They are the ones defending public services, not the Government, and they are the ones fighting to stop trains without ticket offices, and railways with a reduced number of safety precautions. They are the ones fighting to stop a healthcare system that is run from silicon valley by surveillance companies such as Palantir, and fighting for our education system, which 44% of teachers plan to leave within five years. The Government, however, are on the side of employers such as P&O, British Gas and British Airways, with a Bill that gives a green light to the practitioners of fire and rehire, poverty pay and a race to the bottom. And yes, as ever, the Government are on the side of the rich and wealthy, as they have always been.
But the Bill is also part of a longer term, anti-democratic trend, and part of a raft of anti-democratic legislation passed by the Government. It is a trend of transferring power away from workers and citizens, and eliminating their limited rights and freedoms in the workplace and across society. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 criminalised political protest. The Elections Act 2022 will disenfranchise millions through voter ID, and it undermined the independence of the Electoral Commission. The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 limits the power of courts to remedy unlawful Government action on the part of the Executive. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 means that 6 million in this country could now be stripped of citizenship at the whim of the Home Secretary, and although the Government have temporarily gone quiet on this, we know they also want to repeal the Human Rights Act.
The British public have had enough of being told by this Government to suck up failing privatised public services, corrupt politicians, collapsing living standards, a dying environment and a falling democracy. They have had enough of being told that there is no alternative, that politicians will always be caught on the take, that the rich and powerful will always be able to buy influence, that foodbanks are inevitable, that the NHS will always be in crisis, that our rivers will always be polluted, and that a race to the bottom on employment rights is inevitable. History will show that the Bill is the act of a Government on the ropes, bereft of direction, and lashing out at the very public they claim to protect. This grim 50-year-old ideological experiment is in tatters all around, and I will be voting against this piece of rubbish.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
I welcome you to your place, Mr Deputy Speaker, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis). I was struck by something he just said. Yes, the rich and powerful can always buy influence—we need only see the number of people who have made declarations this evening.
This simple and effective Bill is aimed at ensuring that the right to collective bargaining and the withdrawal of labour does not conflict with the right of the average British citizen to access lifesaving or potentially important services while unions and the Government negotiate. The debilitating strikes of the past six months have wreaked havoc on this country, dragging us into a virtual state of second lockdown, and preventing workers from travelling to offices and shoppers from accessing high streets, and putting additional pressure on the NHS. We understand that this is driven in part by the inflationary pressures that we are encountering as a nation.
No one is disputing the right of workers to withdraw their labour as part of a negotiation, however unreasonable some of those demands end up being; no one is saying that at all. All that we are asking for is some proportionality and responsibility in how that is done. Our nation should not be held hostage and have lives risked simply for want of minimum safety standards. That is what we are talking about.
We are not talking about blanket enforcement; just recognition that some services are simply vital. Those include health, fire and rescue, health and education. Few of us will forget the impact of shutting down schools during the pandemic. They also include transport—the Mayor of London cannot stick to his zero strikes pledge—the decommissioning of nuclear installations; the management of radioactive waste, which is surely a no-brainer and one that we can all agree needs to go on; and border security.
The Bill ensures that people can access an ambulance when they call for one, count on fire responders in an emergency, send their children to school and travel to work. Why should people be held to ransom by militant, unelected trade union officials? If they want that power, they should stand for election and not simply buy support from the Labour party.
Chris Clarkson
No, I will not.
Minimum service levels are not an anomaly. France, Spain and Italy have given minimum service levels during strikes, and I thought that the Labour party was in favour of more European alignment. The Government do not want to use the Bill, but it is vital to have in place a system that allows the British public to access services during strike days and go about their lives in an ordinary way.
We have to ask ourselves: what are the strikes really about? I will highlight rail because I am a regular commuter. Union bosses have refused to accept that the pandemic has fundamentally changed how travellers use the rail network. Modernising the network is essential to ensuring that it is sustainable for future generations. The Government stepped in with support of more than £30 billion for the rail industry during the pandemic. That is not pocket change.
I have seen at first hand the impact of what rail strikes have done to the west coast main line, where at one point we faced coach journeys of up to 10 hours because of the lack of flexibility. That is fine for me because I can afford to be flexible with my working arrangements and I have a good, guaranteed wage. However, plenty of my constituents do not have that, so if the service is not there when they need it, they are in serious trouble. The hypocrisy of the trade unions, who say that they are fighting for workers, is palpable. Travel is unavoidable for millions of workers who do not have the option of working remotely. Those people are driving Britain’s economy, despite the obstacles put in front of them by the trade unions. Let us look at the collateral effects: December’s rail strikes cost UK hospitality £1.5 billion, and huge swathes of businesses and jobs were lost.
The simple fact of the matter is that, with more than £15 million donated by the trade unions to the Labour party, it is no wonder that Labour Members sit on their hands while trade unions cripple our vital services. Even the Leader of the Opposition knows it—that is why he is not here leading the debate but instead rubbing shoulders with bankers in Davos.
The strikes have become contagious, spreading from one sector to another, holding the British public hostage in the hope that the Government will surrender. That is not how a democracy works. I support workers’ rights, but that is not limitless. I welcome the commitment to the rights of the British public to access vital services during strike action, and I look forward to supporting the Bill later tonight.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) with that extremely interesting speech. I would like to put on the record that I am a proud member of Unite the union and the GMB. I will vote against the Bill and stand in absolute solidarity with all those in Liverpool, West Derby taking industrial action in defence of their pay, their conditions and their colleagues, as well as in defence of the public who rely on those services. I am proud to stand alongside workers on picket lines and will continue to support those workers in their struggle with pride. May I offer a word of advice to Conservative Members? Go to the picket lines and speak to the people on them. Maybe then the demonisation will not slip so easily from their lips.
This is a pernicious Bill that shames the House and the nation. It is designed to attack and demoralise public service workers who are taking industrial action as a very last resort. I have spoken to nurses, firefighters, civil servants and posties in Liverpool at our food pantries, who have been forced into food poverty because of the wages that they have received after 12 years of austerity—a political choice made by the Tory Government in 2010. We are now living through the wreckage of that choice, with the destruction of our NHS and public services.
Let us be clear: the reason why these workers are having to take industrial action in the first place is because of the Government and their decisions. Never, ever forget that the hunger and poverty that many public sector workers face at the moment is a political choice that the Prime Minister unfortunately finds so easy to make. We have a multi-millionaire Prime Minister who will never know what it is like to feel hungry—he will never fear the creep of poverty at the door of his home—telling public sector workers facing this dire situation that they will be sacked if they withdraw their labour when they are simply saying, “Enough is enough.” It is obscene.
We have a morally bankrupt Government with financial scandal after financial scandal, and second job after second job, bringing in draconian legislation to outlaw industrial action for the very people we clapped during covid for everything they had done for us as a nation. The Bill is purposefully lacking in detail. It is a practically unworkable and potentially unlawful attempt to undermine the right to strike. Instead of bringing it to Parliament, Ministers should have been spending time negotiating meaningfully with the trade unions about pay and conditions. They could also have used that time to write the long-promised employment Bill.
The Bill must be voted down. The draconian drift is becoming a raging current. Any parliamentarian who believes in the democratic rights of our citizens must see that clearly and kick this wretched piece of legislation out of this place.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Industrial action has impacted on many aspects of people’s lives in Guildford over the past few months. I regret the decisions made by multiple trade unions to strike, leaving no train services for commuters and key workers in my constituency, Christmas cards to loved ones arriving in January, and delays at the UK border for those returning from breaks with family and friends. And this evening we hear that our children’s education is to be disrupted again. That is deeply saddening news.
I welcome the Government’s minimum service level legislation, which delivers on our manifesto commitments and protects the rights of workers to withdraw their labour while ensuring that the general public can go about their daily business safely. This pragmatic legislation will bring the UK into line with other industrialised nations such as France and Spain, which already have such common-sense agreements in place.
During periods of industrial action on the railways, constituents in Guildford and those travelling to town for work have found themselves cut off from the railway network, with no services being run by South Western Railway on those days. That has forced them either to work from home, to find alternative transport such as using their cars, or simply not to work at all. It is often those who earn the least who cannot work at home. Over the Christmas period, the overtime ban that was in force also reduced the levels of service provided to Guildford station.
I know from conversations with constituents on the doorsteps and from my inbox that local people are rightly concerned about the level of public transport provision that they are currently receiving. A recent YouGov poll placed the level of support for this legislation among the wider public at 59%, and I know that feeling is reflected locally in Guildford. The deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), said in her opening speech that Labour would repeal the Bill. Labour Members are showing themselves yet again to be out of touch with my constituents and out of touch with the country.
Rail Partners, the organisation that represents the owners of train operators, including FirstGroup, which owns the majority share in South Western Railway, has said that the Bill’s approach
“seeks to appropriately balance and protect the right to strike and the rights of others to get to work or school and access necessary healthcare.”
I agree with its assessment. The safety of the general public must always remain the primary responsibility of any Government. I welcome the measures proposed in the Bill to do just that. I will be supporting this legislation.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I will not be supporting this legislation, for three reasons. First, the Bill is not really about safety levels at all. Secondly, claims that the Bill reflects current practice elsewhere in Europe are inaccurate. Thirdly, there is the very real risk that these proposals are in breach of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the European convention on human rights and international labour law. As other hon. Members have said, the word “safety” does not even appear in the Bill. It is a Bill about minimum service levels, not minimum safety levels, yet repeatedly Conservative politicians have talked about minimum safety levels and seem very happy for confusion between the two concepts to be caused. I suspect that is because this is a deliberate attempt to hide from the public the real intentions behind the Bill.
Secondly, on European standards, most European countries, as others have said, have a very different model of labour relations from the United Kingdom, which, thanks to successive Tory Governments, has one of the strictest systems of regulations of industrial relations in Europe. In other countries, trades union rights are protected in their written constitutions. Labour law experts will tell you that in most European countries minimum service levels are established by collective bargaining and, in so far as legislation exists, it provides a framework for these agreements, rather than for top-down regulation. The Bill would enable the Secretary of State to impose sweeping regulations from the top on millions of workers in a number of different sectors.
That brings to me to my third point. As I said when I intervened on the Secretary of State, the measures in the Bill go considerably further than the minimum service levels envisaged by the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill published last October. The Government’s own human rights memorandum which accompanied the previous Bill set out in some detail, with reference to existing legislation, the reason their lawyers then said that minimum service levels imposed by legislation were not justified in fire services, health settings and education. Yet that is what they are now proposing and their human rights memorandum for the Bill is very different. I can absolutely guarantee to hon. Members across the House that as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I will be making sure we scrutinise very carefully the difference between the two human rights memorandums.
On compliance with international labour law, the International Labour Organisation has enshrined the right to strike in its convention, to which the UK is a signatory. It is true that minimum service levels are allowed, but not if they are imposed from the top down. They need to be set by negotiation or, if the negotiation breaks down, by an independent body, as happens in Italy. Only in European countries well known for flouting fundamental rights, such as Hungary and Russia, do we see Government-enforced minimum service levels leading to the sacking of workers and the bankrupting of unions fighting for fair pay and conditions. Yet that is exactly what the Tories want to do in the Bill. Perhaps we should not be surprised that, despite all their anti-Putin rhetoric, the Tories want to emulate Putin’s approach to striking workers. Perhaps it is not so surprising given that the Deputy Prime Minister told us he is not ruling out leaving the European convention on human rights and the Home Secretary is keen it should happen as soon as possible. Given that they are keen to be on the same side as Russia on human rights, it is perhaps not surprising that they are doing that in the Bill.
The bottom line is that key workers are striking because their wages have not begun to keep in line with inflation and because the interest rate hikes caused by Tory economic incompetence mean they cannot afford their rent or mortgage. The Government need to recognise the stark reality of those people’s lives and work with their unions respectfully to reach agreement.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Bill is about duty, fairness and balance—nothing more, nothing less. The first duty of any Government is to keep their people safe. The Bill is about ensuring we have minimum levels of safety and service across our essential public services. I heard what the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said about safety, but when we are talking about ambulances and accident and emergency departments, it is about safety. But it is also about fairness. Due to the hard work and dedication of all the ambulance workers across Essex and all the NHS workers at Southend Hospital—every doctor, every porter and every care assistant—nobody in the wonderful city of Southend and in Leigh-on-Sea has suffered any disruption in the service. They have been served with the same dedication and care every day since the strikes began. Why should those who are not lucky enough to live in Southend and Leigh-on-Sea not get the same service? Of course they should because they are all—
Anna Firth
No, I won’t because of the time.
This is about balancing the right to strike with the right to a minimum level of service for those who are paying for it. Of course, the right to strike is something that we on the Conservative Benches consider to be important. It is a key right.
Anna Firth
No, I won’t because of the time.
That right has been a key part of our labour laws since 1906. If I can introduce just a moment of levity into this debate, one could say that collective action actually started in 1381 with the peasants’ revolt, which started in Essex.
However, it is undeniable that strikes are incredibly disruptive. In October last year, we lost 417,000 working days due to strike action, and 2022 is set to have the highest number of days lost to strike action since 1990. Whether it is our trains, ambulances, hospitals or postal service, the strikes disproportionately affect the poorer people in my constituency. Two million people journeys were made from two stations in my constituency of Southend West. These are people who cannot work from home, who cannot afford taxis to get to and from work, who are not allowed the indulgence of hotels that—let’s face it—those of us who work in this place are able to claim. And this affects children. People travelling to our brilliant grammar schools in Southend generally do so by train from different parts of Essex. Our children’s education has suffered enough due to covid. There must be minimum levels to ensure that our children get the education they deserve when they are in school.
On fairness and equality, by ensuring that we have minimum safety levels in our public services, we are ensuring that a service funded by taxpayers equally, serves every taxpayer equally. How could anybody object to that?
This should not be a controversial opinion. Police officers and members of the armed forces are already prevented from taking strike action. Too often, we have to rely on the armed forces, who cannot take strike action because theirs is an essential service. Life and limb are involved. Yet we rely on them—
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud union member.
The Bill is an affront to Parliament. It will not protect the public, it will worsen industrial relations and it will undermine the unity of the United Kingdom. It should be voted down tonight. There has been much heated argument about the provisions in the Bill. On all the moral and pragmatic arguments, I stand firmly on the side of working people and their right to withdraw their labour, and against what the Government seek to do in the Bill. However, I do not consider that those moral and pragmatic arguments are likely to change the minds—or more importantly the votes—of Conservative Members. I therefore want to put forward an argument against the Bill that I believe they both can and should accept: it is damaging to our constitution and to the Union.
The reason the Bill is so short is that it delegates to the Secretary of State the power to set out all the relevant law in regulations through statutory instruments—regulations which receive only the most minimal scrutiny in this place and cannot be amended. So it is the Secretary of State, not Parliament, who will make regulations to determine the levels of service in relation to strikes, who gets to define the nature of the services to be provided, the number of people who are to provide them, the time at which they are to be provided and the manner in which they are to be provided during a strike. Extraordinarily, the Bill also proposes that the Secretary of State should have the power by regulation to
“amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under primary legislation”
in this House. So statutes passed by Parliament can be amended by regulations drafted by the Minister without full parliamentary scrutiny. In a recent report by a Committee of the House of Lords, “Democracy Denied?”, their lordships state:
“A substantial groundswell of concern is developing about the shift in power from Parliament to ministers.”
This Bill is perhaps the most egregious example yet of a measure brought forward by an increasingly autocratic Executive to strip Parliament of its role in determining what, for many of us, is a critical area of employment and human rights.
It gets worse. The primary legislation that the Secretary of State can amend or repeal is defined to include an Act of the Senedd or the Scottish Parliament. That should set alarm bells ringing for all of us, nationalists and Unionists alike. What is being proposed is that the Secretary of State in Westminster should have the power by regulation to override devolved legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd—and to do so with minimal scrutiny in this House. If the Executive had intended to provoke constitutional outrage and call into question the very basis of the devolutionary settlements, they could not have designed a piece of legislation better guaranteed to do so.
That the Secretary of State in Whitehall should claim the power to legislate by regulation to interfere in devolved areas of government and to impose restrictions in different parts of this Union on the right to strike in transport, education, health and other public services in Scotland and Wales is more than unwarranted. It is more than inappropriate. It is a deliberate provocation and offence.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Would my hon. Friend like to comment on why the Government have refused even to agree to the super-affirmative procedure?
Barry Gardiner
That is quite simply because they are introducing a party political measure that is designed to provoke this House.
I call on all Conservative Members, if they care about the Union at all, to vote against this wrecking ball of a Bill, which will only provide succour to those voices seeking to destroy our constitutional settlement and our United Kingdom. Under the Bill, the employer has the unilateral right to identify in a work notice the individual workers required to operate the MSL. A worker who refuses to comply after having been requisitioned in this way will lose unfair dismissal protection.
The Government are thus authorising employers to do what not even a court in this country can do. Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992:
“No court shall…compel an employee to do any work or attend at any place for the doing of any work.”
However, once the union is notified of the identity of the workers to be requisitioned, the Bill requires the union to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that all its members identified in the work notice comply with it. It is ironic that, under the Bill, the same trade union may be required to discipline or expel—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am terribly sorry that I had not given notice, but we are going down to three minutes to get as many people in as we possibly can.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I should first declare that I am a member of the British Medical Association. As an NHS consultant paediatrician and a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I take a great interest in the Bill and particularly in its impact on health. During my career, I have worked—indeed, I continue to work—with many fabulous NHS staff. However, as many hon. Members have rightly pointed out, the pay rise of over 19% demanded by the Royal College of Nursing is simply unaffordable.
The pay rises being demanded would also continue to drive up inflation at a time when the Government are working night and day to keep it down. Because of the way in which NHS staff are paid, we cannot give one group a pay rise without giving it to others in the same pay band. Although different unions give the impression that they are negotiating separately—the ambulance staff, the nursing staff, the middle and junior managers—in reality, they are all on the same banding scheme. A rise for one is a rise for all, with each 1% rise costing £700 million.
It is clear that the Opposition seem to have misrepresented the Government’s policy as an attempt to take away the right to strike, when that is so clearly not the purpose of this legislation. When it comes to the NHS, it is not right that those who are in desperate need of medical care cannot get an ambulance or receive care because of strike action. These are measures designed to protect lives and ensure that people who face an imminent threat to life or limb have quick access to care and treatment. How could anybody not want such care to be received? That is why minimum service levels are individually negotiated by the various ambulance services, but that leads to inconsistency across the country. A pre-agreed national minimum level will help to improve patient safety.
Another reason we need minimum service levels is that legislation on striking services does not require people to say whether or not they are striking. That has recently meant a situation in which people organising ward rotas have not known who is turning up to work, which makes it very difficult to plan even minimum services for shifts. That is all very well when you are dealing with parcel deliveries, but when you need a certain number of people to care for acutely sick people, it is vital to be able to plan. A minimum service level allows that.
Furthermore, the Opposition are suggesting that the Government want to sack people for striking. That, again, is a gross distortion. Striking is a collective decision; that is why it is voted on. The Government’s measures apply to those who, having agreed to be part of a minimum service level, then do not turn up to work. That would be a dereliction of duty under any circumstances, and in practice we all know that it is not going to happen, because NHS staff would simply never do that.
It has been clear for some time that Opposition Members are not brave enough either to say how much they would offer the unions or to criticise the strikes, even when they so clearly threaten the lives of their constituents. It is perhaps no coincidence that the unions behind the recent ambulance strikes are some of the Labour party’s biggest donors. In the meantime, the Government, my Back-Bench colleagues and I will continue to serve our country and our constituents. The first duty—
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I rise to speak as a proud trade unionist. I have been a member of a trade union all my working life, so I completely fail to understand the division that Government Members are trying to draw between union members and workers. The general public are not buying it either.
Our nurses, teachers, doctors, paramedics, rail workers and firefighters have all worked consistently hard over the past decade, particularly since covid, yet they face real cuts in their pay and drastically worse working conditions. NHS nurses are earning £5,000 a year less in real terms than in 2010; for midwives and paramedics, the drop is more than £6,000. We need to retain workers in those professions, but instead they are being driven away by the Tories running our public services into the ground. Instead of trying to resolve the issue at the heart of these strikes, this Government are undermining workers’ basic right to strike and are trying to turn the public against them. It is not working.
I am deeply concerned by the sweeping powers in the Bill, which will allow the Government to dictate what the minimum level of service should be in a given industry, with only a meaningless requirement for the Secretary of State to “consult” whoever they consider “appropriate”. It is disgraceful that employers will have the ability to pick and choose which individuals will be compelled to work and forced to cross a picket line or be sacked. That is not a balanced or fair approach, nor will it resolve any of the core issues that workers are trying to raise through these strikes.
There are already more restrictions on strikes than ever before, and they are being followed to the letter, so the strikes that are going ahead have already met the legal requirements. Steve Rice, the head of the GMB union’s ambulance committee, recently wrote to the Prime Minister to call out his dangerous claims that ambulance workers are putting lives at risk. Surely the Prime Minister knows that unions have been working with NHS trusts to guarantee emergency cover during the strike action; if he does not, that is really quite damning. In reality, on 21 December, when GMB ambulance workers undertook industrial action, the proportion of patients delayed for over an hour actually dropped significantly, so where is the evidence that striking essential workers are not already providing the minimum level of service? It is not there.
I understand any fears that the public may have of not being able to access emergency healthcare when they need it, but the Government should be honest with constituents rather than demonising hard-working staff who want to be able to provide the best service possible. Better yet, the Government should meet workers to negotiate and understand their concerns instead of dismissing them. It is not striking workers who are causing the crisis in the NHS; it is a decade of Tory mismanagement.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I believe in the right to strike. I do not think strikes work, but I do believe in them.
I was brought up in Doncaster. As a young man, I saw the picket lines, the oil drums and the people—mainly men—standing around trying to keep warm. They were trying for an extra 4% or 5% on their wages, with the unions backing them. Often they won—they often got that extra bit of a pay rise that they wanted—but move forward five or 10 years, and what did we have? We had closures. We had thousands and thousands of redundancies, and closures. That is what happens when people go on strike.
The customers of the industries on strike were not paying while those services were being taken away, but my constituents do not have a choice. They have to keep on paying, and when they pay they expect a service. They pay whether they get the service or not, and this Bill is before us now because the unions are taking advantage of the place in which the country finds itself through no fault of its own, just as they did in the 1970s and 1980s.
I have employed many people in my life. There have been times when we have had too much work and times when we have had too little, but neither my staff nor I have ever abused the upper hand. The unions are, I believe, abusing the position in which the country finds itself. They are trying to hold the country to ransom, and the Opposition are backing them because they are donors.
We are legislators, and we should legislate only when there is an issue that requires our intervention. This appears to be one of those moments. I understand that the Government will be seeking talks with unions and employers to see where the level of minimum service sits, and I hope that those talks are entered into with the right spirit and a voluntary arrangement can be made. If such an arrangement can be made, it should be, and then we can all move on quickly and get our country back on its feet.
Let me once again thank all the nurses at Doncaster Royal Infirmary, who voted against striking because they know that their best efforts are made while they are at work, not while they are on picket lines.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
I am not funded by unions—or Russia—so before I even get on to the Bill, it is important for me to highlight the fact that the laws on trade unions in the UK are already among the most restrictive in Europe. Ministers claim that such Bills are common in France, Spain and Germany, but they leave out the fact that this Bill is much harsher than any of the examples that they cite. UK workers will lose their automatic protection from unfair dismissal, for instance. Ministers also claim that the Bill is about ensuring that a minimum level of service is available for the health and safety of the public, when they know fine well that life-and-limb agreements are already in place.
The truth is that this Bill is designed to undermine and attack both workers’ rights and democracy. It carves out yet another door through which Westminster can further erode and undermine the Scottish Parliament. It is so bad that it might fall foul of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right of workers to assemble as they wish—the very same convention that the Tories want to take us out of. I wonder why.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Are we not seeing a pattern of behaviour? When the Government could not reach the child poverty targets, they scrapped them. What they are doing now is moving the goalposts and introducing a hostile environment and hostile legislation to attack workers’ rights and human rights.
Mhairi Black
Absolutely—and that leads me neatly to my next point.
I have previously spoken about the dangers of sleepwalking into fascism if we are not careful. I did not say it lightly then and I do not say it lightly now, but history is undeniable. The slide into authoritarian and anti-democratic politics has always been underpinned by anti-trade union rhetoric. Over the years, we have listened to countless right-wing politicians and Governments claiming that Brexit would in no way affect workers’ rights, yet here we are.
The reason trade unions organise industrial action is that it works. It has always been the only language that those who hold power understand. The only reason any worker has any rights at all is the existence of trade unions, and the ability of workers to organise collectively in defence of their jobs and their livelihoods. People who bleat about the disruption that strike action causes are missing the point entirely. If your day is disrupted by someone not turning up to their job, it just goes to show how crucial that person’s job is, and why their pay and conditions should reflect that.
There is another myth that I have heard. In fact, people do not undertake strike action lightly. Strikers lose money. Strike action indicates a crisis. Our nurses, doctors, teachers, cleaners and supermarket workers are the very people who have kept the world turning through a global pandemic, a cost of living crisis and 13 years of Tory austerity, but this Government choose to ignore and demoralise them at every turn. This Government would rather blame striking workers than acknowledge the fact that the root causes of strike action lie directly at their door. We have the lowest pensions and sick pay in Europe, we still do not have a living wage and we are living in economic chaos, with inequality getting worse.
The only people who are putting the health and safety of the public at risk are the members of this Government —a Government run for Twitter; a Government of clicks and culture wars, with no serious answers. Ultimately, trade unions work, and that is exactly why the Tories are going after them.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I withdrew, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I was not present for the opening speeches.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Not at all, Mr Deputy Speaker! But thank you very much.
I rise to speak in opposition to this Bill. I am not currently a member of a trade union, I have never been a trade union official, and I do not get any money from a trade union. Last week I even found myself—much to my own surprise—in agreement with the Secretary of State when he said to the House that when we need an ambulance, we need to know that one will turn up. I agreed with that, but I did not agree with the context in which he meant it. We should be able to rely on such a service all the time, not simply when there is a strike on.
I would even have continued to agree with the Secretary of State, and I could even have found myself thinking about supporting the Bill, if I had felt that it was an attempt to address the problem, but it is not. It not about problem solving; it is political posturing. It is an empty, detail-light, vague promise of a mandatory minimum level to replace existing voluntary arrangements. It will simply ramp up the rhetoric, without saying how anything will be achieved or offering any progress towards the solution that the public need.
None of us—those in this place, those at home watching television, those working on the railways, in hospitals or in any other sector, or those working as teachers—wanted this wave of strikes, because it further undermines recovery in those sectors, which were already stretched before the pandemic. Let us not get into the argument about whether the pandemic or the war in Ukraine is causing this, because neither is the case. The cause of these strikes is the deterioration in our public services that the Government have not just allowed but, at times, seemed to foster—and what are they doing? They are introducing this Bill, which is somewhat akin to taking a mallet to peel a peach.
The Bill will not undo that deterioration, and it will not help our public sectors. Already too many people go to sleep at night worried that if they have a heart attack or a stroke there will be no ambulance, and the Bill does not attack that problem. The reason we have a crisis this winter is this Government’s inaction. They have failed the workers in the public sector. It is nothing to do with trade unionism; it is to do with the Government’s failure. We always say that when there is a strike, it is a failure of both sides. It is a cliché, but the thing about clichés is that we use them because they are usually right. These strikes are a failure. With this Bill, the Government are doing nothing to undo that.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I declare my interest as a member of a trade union, and as a politician who has received donations from trade unions to my constituency Labour party. I am proud that all that is declared on public record.
My constituents want a minimum service level when it comes to transport. Unfortunately, they are served by train companies such as Avanti or TransPennine Express, so even when it is not a strike day, getting a train on time is sometimes impossible. My constituents want to know that when they phone an ambulance it will get there in time, but the reality for many constituents I have heard from, particularly in rural parts such as Preesall and Knott End, is that when they phone an ambulance, the waiting times not on a strike day are already unacceptable.
This legislation is not an attempt to fix our public services and to resolve the disputes that are raging around the country right now; it is to distract from the failure. This piece of legislation has come with no consultation and no impact assessment. This Government have come forward with no employment Bill that could actually outlaw fire and rehire or that could ensure that people have decent rights at work. That could go a long way to fixing the broken relationship that seems to exist and that this Government seek to stoke with the legislation before us tonight. These disputes will be resolved only by negotiation and reasonableness. By introducing this legislation, the Government do nothing but stoke that division. The legislation just makes strikes more likely to happen. Where minimum service levels are in place on the continent we see more days lost to strike action, not less.
In short, this legislation is draconian. It is there to sack the nurses. It is counter-productive. It will cause more days to be lost to strike action and it is unnecessary. I really do hope that the Government will, instead, take some opportunities to visit picket lines in their own constituencies and speak to those workers who are out on strike. I speak to striking workers across Lancaster and Fleetwood, such as the postal workers on Fenton Street. I know they are suffering. They are losing a day’s pay, but they are doing it because they are desperate to preserve that public service, to make sure that everyone gets decent, fair pay, a decent pension and safety in the workplace. That is what trade unions are about. I urge the Government to be reasonable and look again.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I stand as a former shop steward and convener. I proudly refer to my register of interests—do have a look. I cannot begin to express my anger, dismay and disgust at this piece of draconian legislation. I send my solidarity to those demonstrating outside as we speak, as I know many in the Chamber do. They will demonstrate until we get rid of this draconian piece of legislation.
Across the country we are seeing the worst strikes in decades. Railway workers are on strike; nurses are on strike—for the first time ever the Royal College of Nursing is on strike—postal workers are on strike; bus drivers are on strike; ambulance staff are on strike; civil servants are on strike. Now, teachers are on strike, and many more. I will have missed somebody from the list because that many people are on strike.
They are striking for a reason: the cost of living crisis. The mortgages go up, the gas bills go up, the electricity bills go up and the food bills go up. They have a fundamental right. I heard some Members on the Government Benches talking about freedom, including freedom of speech. What about freedom to organise, to campaign and to negotiate for a cost of living pay rise? It is a fundamental British right. This is a real attack on democracy. Some Government Members I have worked with cross-party should be ashamed of themselves, certainly on this point.
Instead of taking responsibility and addressing the real issues, the Prime Minister is playing politics with people’s lives. Those very public servants are some of the inconvenienced public that the Government Members are talking about. Hey presto! A strike does inconvenience people. Let us stick to the facts. North West Ambulance Service workers, who I visited in the Warrington area not long ago, just before Christmas, were striking as a last resort. They did not want to do that, but they were providing the minimum level of service—life and limb. I saw the ambulances going out. I have heard lots of myths this evening about that. The current arrangements under the status quo actually work, but I will stand together with everyone tonight and vote against this draconian, disgraceful piece of legislation, and stand up for British workers and British people.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I am speaking as a Unison member and, prior to that, someone who was a member of the RCN since 1984. I am proud to have stood on picket lines recently with the RMT, the Communication Workers Union, the GMB and the RCN. My constituents are members of unions. They are workers and they form part of all the workforce who are engaged in industrial action at the moment.
I want to give the few Conservative Members remaining in the Chamber a bit of a reality check. It is not good enough for them to say that it is everyone else’s fault but theirs, when the fault lies fairly and squarely at their door. Let me be clear: it was not this Government that did the heavy lifting during covid; it was the doctors, nurses, firefighters, railway workers, postal workers, other key workers in supermarkets and many others. It was every key worker that the Tory Government now want to demonise and threaten. They are the heroes of the pandemic, but this Government now treat them with utter contempt. What kind of a thank you is it to say, “We are going to force you to work and we will not help you any longer”? They are striking for decent pay and minimum safe levels to prevent risk to life and limb.
The Bill purports to be about minimum service levels. If only that were true. Try telling that to the NHS staff with an impossible workload or the fire and rescue teams denied access to proven vital health and safety processes. Let us take nurses as an example. In relation to minimum levels, nurses in this country work with roughly two to two and a half times the workload of that recommended by the Royal College of Midwives and the RCN. The international comparisons that the Government have set out do not take account of this intolerable workload or of the fact that patient-to-staff ratio in other countries is significantly better than it is here.
The Government pretend they are being responsible but they are being anything but. They complain about affordability, but I mentioned earlier the amount of money that has gone into the hands of the 1%. It is not $21 trillion; it is $26 trillion. All the while, the Conservatives partied and profiteered throughout the pandemic while those key workers were on their knees. The people of the UK are on their side, and striking is the only means they have to stem this vulgar neo-conservative tide of greed and restore dignity to their lives.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As a lifelong and proud trade unionist, I want to send my solidarity and support to all striking public sector workers. This Government have already lost in the court of public opinion because of their refusal to negotiate with striking workers, so instead of getting round the table, they are changing the rules of the game.
The Bill grants the Secretary of State unprecedented powers to disrupt striking workers by allowing management to pick and choose which of their employees should be on a strike rota on rota days to maintain a legal minimum service provision. This will essentially give managers carte blanche to target union organisers and force them to cross their own picket lines under threat of losing their job and risking financial penalties for their union for failing to meet minimum service requirements on strike days. The TUC has said it has major concerns about the significant risk of discrimination if this is pushed through. Workers fighting for their jobs, pay and conditions should not be threatened with the sack.
No worker votes for strike action lightly. It is always a last resort, particularly for frontline services. The RCN had never been on strike in its 100-plus-year history until recently, and it never did so under a Labour Government. Minimum service level agreements already exist in key life-and-limb services where health and safety is at risk. Indeed, we often hear of situations where staffing levels are better on strike days, due to legal requirements, than on non-strike days, because of the massive shortfall in NHS staffing levels.
We are facing the deepest crisis in our NHS since it began, with record waiting times, a collapse in staff recruitment and retention, patients waiting for hours in ambulances or on chairs in corridors, decades of wage stagnation and 13 years of austerity and selective amnesia from Conservative Members. A minimum service law will not solve our problems, as the Minister well knows. The Government’s impact analysis warns that the Bill could lead to even more strikes, worsening industrial relations, prolonged disputes and reduced conditions for workers.
I conclude by congratulating the National Education Union on its successful strike ballot. Its teachers are saying that enough is enough, and this Government need to recognise that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
If Members can shave a few seconds off their speeches, it would help to get everybody in.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I ask myself what problem so afflicts the British state that its Government see fit to bring forward a major piece of primary legislation. Is it really the case that militant pickets are preventing people from getting life-saving treatment? Is it the case that callous trade unionists are refusing to negotiate life-and-limb emergency cover, and that people are dying as a consequence? The answer to all those questions is no. In fact, we know of countless stories in which trade unionists have left their picket-line protests to make sure that people do not die. When I asked the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to say how many lives would be saved by this legislation, he refused to answer, perhaps because the answer is none.
So why is this Bill being introduced? I think the answer is quite simple. We are approaching the fag end of this Tory Government. Their poll ratings are in the toilet, their members are disillusioned and their Back-Bench MPs are increasingly despairing about their own survival. In a desperate attempt to revive their fortunes, they are trying to resurrect the strategy of the Thatcherites a generation ago. They are trying to monster ordinary working people who are fighting for their rights. They are trying to pretend that ordinary working people are other, that they are somehow against the public interest and are therefore not deserving of public support, but it will not work this time, because they have gone too far and there are too many people involved. There is not a family in this land who do not know someone caught up in this dispute and who do not recognise the justice of their cause, so the Government will not be able to do it this time round.
Hannah Bardell
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we speak, firefighters who ran into Grenfell are suffering and dying from cancer, and it is workers like them who will be prevented from protesting and striking? That continues to be a disgrace.
Tommy Sheppard
Indeed, I do. Across the public sector we see people who, in recent years, saved us from the trials of the pandemic. These are people who should be venerated, not demonised. They should be paid, not punished.
The international comparisons made in this debate are so spurious when we look at them. Not a single country in Europe has legislation like this. The minimum standards everywhere else are negotiated. There is no other country in which a person can be sacked for going on strike if their employer says they cannot, as proposed in this Bill.
The proposals in relation to Scotland and the devolved Administrations are the most pernicious. Is it because the Government are jealous or frustrated at the fact that the Government in Scotland take a different view—that, rather than demonise trade unions, they will sit down with them, respect them and try, within the constraints, to get a negotiated deal? Are the UK Government so furious with the Scottish Government for doing that that they now see the need to export, across the border, a conflict in our industrial relations? That is what is coming, and it is a slap in the face to everyone who supports devolution. This Bill proposes that, in devolved services such as transport, health and education, the parameters for operation will not be set by the elected Parliament in Edinburgh but by this place, even if the parameters do not fit the circumstances. People in Scotland will reject these proposals, as they reject the other attempts to erode the limited power they have. And they will call for complete control of industrial relations in Scotland—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Not everyone is going to get in. If Members take interventions, more people will not get in.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It was always going to come to this, where the ideological and deliberate attack on workers, along with the carefully choreographed under-resourcing of the public services that the people of this country hold dear over these past 13 years, which have been so blatantly carved up by the spivs and the profiteers, comes hard up against the inevitable neoliberal endgame of in-work poverty; and where workers are left with no choice other than to stand up for themselves and their service by withdrawing their labour. They do so not simply because their wages are insultingly, woefully insufficient and shrinking in value, and do not pay enough for them to pay their soaring bills, and rip demand out of the beleaguered and disastrously managed economy; they do so also in order to save the very service that they so cherish.
What is the response from this lot on the Government Benches? Instead of listening to workers and coming up with a fair deal that they can accept, or producing a plan to sustain public services into the future, they hit out and turn the screws, depriving working people of their basic civil liberties and human rights to organise and campaign for a better deal. I am proud that the Labour party has made it abundantly clear that this anti-worker, anti-trade union, “sack the nurses” Bill will be immediately repealed when Labour comes to power, and that we will bring in the new deal for working people that our people so desperately need.
This attack is not new; at every turn, especially in the Thatcher era and during the past 13 years, the Conservatives have demonised trade unions as being the enemy within, instead of seeing them as the force for good and for economic and social change for the benefit of the working class that they truly are. With their nasty, pernicious propaganda spewed out by their chums in the right-wing press, this Tory Government have delivered the biggest rallying call to working people that there has been for many a year. I urge all those workers who want to protect themselves and their industry, profession or calling to join a union today, if they have not done so already. Yes, I am urging them to take back control and join the fight for a better deal for themselves, their families and communities.
This Bill is not the way to build good industrial relations—it is the exact opposite—so this is an important moment in our history. I have no doubt that the British people will have their say in fulsome measure when they turf these dreadful Tories out of office, and that day cannot come too soon.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Let me declare my interest as a proud member of the trade union movement—I have been all my life and will be until the day I die. People in this debate need to recognise that we should not be surprised by the actions of the Government, because they have crashed the economy and people cannot put their heating on and they cannot eat. People are struggling to feed their families and they cannot pay their mortgages. So what happens? They get together and the Tories revert back to what they believe they are best at: attacking ordinary working people; attacking the trade unions. They relish it; they love it. That is what this is about. The Secretary of State should admit it: the Tories are running scared, they are finished, they are a busted flush after 13 years of austerity. They should accept that, but no, they are attacking ordinary working people.
I think I speak for a lot of the people when I say that there is nothing in this world, and no one on this planet, that could conscript me to cross a picket line. It does not matter what legislation the Tories wish to push forward and it does not matter what rules, regulations or Government diktat they put in place, thou shalt not cross a picket line.
Let me refer, in the short time I have left, to the attacks on ordinary working people. The Government are demonising the people who brought us through the pandemic: the posties, the transport workers, the bus drivers, the train drivers, the people who work on the transport system, the nurses, the NHS workers and the ambulance drivers. These are not mad Marxist militants. They are not forced to be part of a trade union; they join a trade union. As sales of champagne and luxury yachts go through the roof, sadly, our key workers are forced to use food banks. I will oppose the Bill tonight and urge every other Member of Parliament to do so as well, out of respect for the ordinary people who brought us through the pandemic and who work hard for this country.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I entered politics as a teaching union rep. I am still a trade union member. I am also co-chair of the Justice Unions Group and, contrary to the myth that the Conservatives like to propagate, I have taken not a single penny from the unions—I do it for political reasons and values. I am sure that it comes as no surprise, therefore, that Plaid Cymru will be opposing this reprehensible legislation tonight.
Nobody seeks to strike, least of all the workers who lose a day’s pay. The strikes of health workers are a last resort for over-worked staff who fear that patient safety is suffering because of increased demand and staff shortages. What do the Government propose to do? They propose to bring in sanctions that threaten to sack those very staff. Yet the UK Government have no interest in working with our key workers. They would rather pursue this socially divisive legislation in an attempt to distract from the daily disruption to public services caused by their own party’s butchering of budgets 365 days a year.
Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether the legislation will cause further disruption to businesses by undermining commitments made in the trade and co-operation agreement to
“protect and promote social dialogue on labour matters among workers and employers.”
It is not to reduce that legislation, but to build upon it, and that is not what we are talking about today.
It is becoming increasingly clear that our rights are not safe under Westminster control. First there was our democratic right to protest, now our democratic right to strike, and next a bonfire of the protections, hard won when workers were protected by membership of the EU.
Of course, the UK Government’s disregard for Welsh workers comes as no surprise. Last summer they announced their intention to scrap the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017, a law passed by our Senedd to protect workers in Wales. The only way to give Wales the power to protect workers’ rights for good from relentless Westminster attacks is to devolve employment law to Wales, as is already the case, and well before devolution took place in the late 1990s, in Northern Ireland. I urge the Labour party to drop its opposition to this policy and support workers in Wales and Scotland as a matter of urgency.
In the little time that we have left, and to bring my remarks to a close, the easiest, safest and fairest way of guaranteeing minimum service provision is to ensure that key workers are able to do their jobs effectively by improving working conditions, by bringing forward the long-promised employment Bill and by giving workers the proper pay increases they need. On the question of pay, there must be recognition that public services in Wales face additional pressure due to a funding system that perpetuates high levels of poverty and the knock-on effect that poverty has on health, and the reality of having an older population than the rest of the UK. Now is the time for Westminster to recognise this and to commit to the needs that public services in Wales require.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud union member and I was a trade union official before entering this place.
After 13 years of Conservative Government, life for ordinary people in this country has got harder. This country is again an outlier on workers’ rights, and has been for some time. What a sad indictment of a Government who purport to be a standard bearer of democratic rights in defence of a free society. This legislation, amounting to yet another brazen attack on an already fragile settlement for workers in this country, flies in the face of the basic liberty to withdraw one’s labour. This legislation does not protect the public—quite the opposite. This Bill, hastily put together, is incoherent and unworkable, and I am sure that in time it will prove unlawful.
This bosses’ charter will make it easier to sack workers across several sectors: our paramedics, firefighters, nurses, train guards and many more. It will not make those workplaces safer. Key workers are demanding a decent settlement amid an economic crisis they had no part in creating. Those workers received the adulation and applause from Conservative Ministers throughout the pandemic, only to be abandoned, threatened and dehumanised when the going got tough. I will oppose this Bill with every fibre of my being.
It was the trade union movement that delivered the weekend, paid holidays, paid sick leave, equal pay, maternity and paternity rights, and the minimum wage. Our collective role now in Labour is to defend the trade unions, provide a voice for their members and our constituents in this place, and prevent this latest attack on our communities. If Conservative Members want to know how Labour would resolve these disputes, they should tell their leader to call a general election and we will soon find out.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
As a proud member of a trade union, I begin by referring the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The proposals before us today are unworkable. They do nothing to address the reasons why workers go on strike and instead attack workers’ rights. The Government are imposing these measures as a distraction from fact that for 12 years they have given us an economy where wages have been squeezed and conditions have worsened. Let us be clear: the strikes are a result of this Government’s economic failure.
Industrial action is always a last resort. Workers on low pay do not choose to lose a day’s wage unless they absolutely have to. I know, because I have been on strike as a low-paid teacher. I know that the colleagues I taught with were concerned about not just their loss of income, but the impact on the pupils we taught. To suggest that striking is a decision that is taken lightly is simply wrong.
Going on strike is a difficult decision personally, but practically it is not easy either. We have some of the toughest trade union laws in Europe. Online voting in strike ballots is prohibited and there is a high threshold for both turnout and votes in favour. That only puts into context the strength of feeling among those workers who have voted to withdraw their labour.
Industrial action on the scale we are seeing today has not happened in a generation. In 1984, 14,000 miners went on strike in Barnsley, and 200,000 across the country, to defend their industry. We still feel the economic effects of the loss of the pits today. That was an attack on one industry by a Government determined to destroy mining in this country. This is an attack on all workers across the public sector, in a clear attempt to get workers to pay the price for this Government’s economic mistakes.
Teachers, bus drivers, rail workers, Border Force, ambulance drivers, NHS staff and nurses have all voted to strike. The Government are trying to label them the new enemy within, but these are the people who kept our country going during the pandemic. They want decent pay to provide for their families. If the Government want to get the country moving again, they will pay them a decent wage and stop threatening them with the sack.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Have we not been told so often throughout the course of this Parliament that one reason we do not have an employment Bill is that there is no parliamentary time? Yet when we see on television the likes of Mick Lynch and Dave Ward, who the Government seem to think have a big button to cause chaos, all of a sudden a Bill comes forward that gives huge amounts of power to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Frankly, looking at clause 3 of the Bill, I would rather put Robert Mugabe in charge of the Electoral Commission than allow the Tories the opportunity to be in charge of workers’ rights.
It is already incredibly hard for workers to exercise their most basic, fundamental human right to withdraw their labour. The thresholds are already very high, and the people I stand alongside on picket lines, whether at Royal Mail or Glasgow Central station, do not want to be on strike. They are doing it knowing they will lose a day’s pay. The attitude of the Government and, in particular, this Secretary of State towards unions is about creating a wedge issue, trying to generate a huge division and pit worker against worker. The reality is that we in this country—or in these countries—already have a very large public service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said, huge numbers of people, in our families and in our neighbourhoods, are taking industrial action.
In reality, this legislation is not necessary. It is not national security legislation. It does not have to be rushed through in a day. The tawdry programme motion would ram the Bill through in the space of five hours even though we would be radically altering people’s terms and conditions and their ability to work. That raises bigger questions about the direction of travel that this Government have taken.
As colleagues have said, the Government already want to remove people’s ability to protest and the ability of the Scottish Parliament, which is democratically elected, to vote. Tonight, they are seeking to block legislation that has been passed by two thirds of that Parliament, which has legislative competence. This Government are going in the wrong direction. Frankly, to respond to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), this makes the case for us. It is why we and the people of Scotland do not want to be a part of this absolutely crumbling democracy that has no legitimacy in Scotland.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am really grateful to those of you who have kept your remarks to well under three minutes; it is good.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am a proud member of Unite the Union.
Politics costs money, and I am proud to be backed by organisations that represent the working class, rather than by the billionaires, oil and gas profiteers and big businesses that bankroll the Conservative party. They represent no one but themselves. There was a brief period in the pandemic when we all recognised who keeps our country running. It was not city bankers, hot-shot lawyers or big business executives; it was the people who drive our buses, sweep our streets, post our mail, teach our kids and nurse us back to health. Briefly, even Conservative Members thanked them. They called key workers “heroes” and clapped for them when the cameras were rolling. But as keyworkers knew, clapping does not pay the bills and, after a decade of falling wages, they could not go on. As the cost of living soars, workers are saying, “Enough is enough” and demanding a better deal. Of course, the Government’s line has changed. Conservative Members are now calling workers greedy and selfish. They have started pitting workers against each other, saying that railway staff should not get a pay rise if nurses do not, but that nurses were not allowed one either. Now they have stooped to an anti-worker Bill that threatens the civil liberties of us all.
This new law would see key workers such as nurses, railway workers, firefighters and teachers fired for going on strike—from clapping nurses to sacking nurses. The Government say that it is about safety, but that word is not mentioned even once in the pages of the Bill. They say it is about bringing us in line with other European nations, but Britain already has some of the most restrictive anti-union laws in the western world. No matter what they say, it is definitely not about resolving current disputes; it is only about inflaming tensions and making negotiations harder. What the Bill is really about is shifting the balance of power: weakening the power of workers and making it easier for bosses to exploit them and for the Government to ignore them.
I will finish with a message to those watching at home who are not sure about the strikes. If your pay is too low and your bills are too high, if you are struggling to make ends meet, and if you cannot get a doctor’s appointment, you are not alone. But the problem is not striking workers, immigrants, refugees, trans people or whoever the right-wing press are scapegoating today. The problem is this Tory Government, their 13 years of disastrous rule and the rigged economy they have built. Alongside record numbers of food banks, Britain has record numbers of billionaires, record profits for big businesses and record wealth for the top 1%. Let us bring together everyone who has had enough and, from the picket line to Parliament, let us fight for a better deal.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
I rise to speak as a proud trade unionist, which I have been since I was 16 and will be until the very end.
The Government do not care about patients, passengers, parents or the public. That is not what their minimum service levels Bill is about. It is a shameful attack on the democratic right to strike. At just six pages long, the Bill does not even set out the boundaries of what is permissible. They say that that will be decided later by the Secretary of State—not by Parliament—through regulation. Shockingly, it also gives the Government the power, without scrutiny, to override legislation made in the devolved legislatures of the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. That is not democracy; it is government by diktat and authoritarianism writ large.
The Bill gives the Government the power to deny workers their fundamental basic human right to strike, allowing employers to bring injunctions to prevent strikes, sue unions and sack employees across the public sector—including in the NHS, transport, fire and rescue, and education—and undermining workers’ rights to a fair wage and improved terms and conditions. Strikes are a symptom, not the cause. Workers are being dragged into poverty and having to resort to strike action to make their voices heard, and this Government are trying to break them. From voter suppression and the attack on our right to protest to this anti-strike Bill, the Government intend to crush workers’ basic freedoms. Yet we live in a democratic society. Strike action is the tool of last resort and the best negotiating power workers have against unscrupulous and callous employers. The Bill seeks to erode the rights of trade unions to organise, and to drive fear through the very soul of workers who could lose their protection from dismissal.
Our trade union and employment rights legislation is already weak. For evidence of that, we have only to look to some of Leicester’s garment industry, where workers are still being paid less than the minimum wage, on zero-hours contracts, in Victorian workhouse conditions. No enforcement agency is able to break the scandalous mistreatment of workers who are fearful and whose powers have been weakened to near silence. In today’s Britain, not a single garment factory in Leicester will recognise a trade union.
In the same way, the Bill seeks obedience at the will of the state. It allows for the punishment of unions and workers who do not comply with a so-called work notice. The Bill is not about providing a basic level of service to the public; it is about breaking the growth of the trade union movement. The right to strike will be controlled by the state and permissible only on Government terms. To resist will mean to be liable to huge penalties.
The Bill is a threat to our basic rights. It is draconian, dehumanising and bullying. It is class war. For the sake of our hard-won freedoms, we must stand firm.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
I proudly draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It should be recorded in this House that, in our country’s history of progress, it was the trade unions that ended child labour, it was the trade unions that made workplaces safer, and it was the trade unions that gained us holidays, maternity and paternity pay, paid sick leave, equal pay legislation, pensions, workplace anti-discrimination laws, and even the weekend. The Government would do well to remember that trade unions have made an immensely positive contribution to society. A strong trade union movement is the cornerstone of any healthy, functioning democracy and a more equal, fair and prosperous society. The good news is that trade union membership is on the rise, with a net increase of 200,000 members over the past three years and online inquiries to the TUC surging by 700% this summer. Organised labour is back and it is going absolutely nowhere.
Shocking leaked emails from this Government show that Ministers are deliberating on an outright ban on trade union membership and strike action, and even introducing further restrictions on the democratic right to withdraw labour. Why might that be? Striking workers in various sectors—from bus drivers to BT engineers—have won for themselves double-digit pay rises, as well as better conditions and an end to outsourcing, while public support for strike action is at an all-time high. Many trade union leaders are more popular than any Government Minister right now, in 2023.
The Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill says that it could mean that more action is taken more frequently, as a way to pressure employers. In rail, the Bill seems particularly short-sighted and even at odds with what many train operating companies want. What happens when, as Mick Whelan from ASLEF asked, 100% of passengers try to get on 40% minimum service level trains? Ultimately, the Bill will do nothing to help resolve disputes or support good industrial relations; in fact, it will do absolutely the opposite.
Last week, the Secretary of State told me that ILO common practice authorises minimum service levels, but he neglected to mention that the ILO imposes restraints on the circumstances in which such powers can be used, the antithesis of the blank cheque that the Bill will give him and other Ministers. This Government’s attempts to draw comparisons with minimum service levels in Europe wholly ignore the broader context of industrial relations across the continent, where there are far higher levels of collective bargaining agreements. In fact, I would say that these proposals are more akin to the practice in countries such as Singapore and Turkey, where strikes can be undermined at the whim of the Government. It is totally disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
The Bill will give Ministers extraordinary powers. Firefighters, nurses, teachers and the same key workers the Government have praised will find themselves liable to be prohibited from striking. It is unnecessary. We should not be back to the days of the Tolpuddle martyrs.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It is half an hour before the wind-ups start and there are more than 10 Members wishing to speak, so do the maths. Please come within the three minutes in order to get everybody in.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, my position as chair of the PCS parliamentary group and my membership of the Unison Glasgow City branch.
The Government started with clapping workers on their doorsteps and they are ending with clapping them in irons. Each of the staff mentioned in this Bill worked hard to protect our communities through crisis after crisis, but if they now wish to protect their own families, they are being threatened with dismissal. The false respect shown to them for their dedication and commitment has now become the removal of their most fundamental human rights.
None of the countries that Government Members have mentioned—they have also mentioned the ILO—imposes these restrictions on balloting or these notification requirements for strike. If the Government want to be consistent about the ILO, let us bring back the Trade Union Act 2016 so that we can discuss those thresholds and restrictions.
Another problem with the Bill is arbitration. In Europe, there is a social partnership model, so workers and employers try to reach agreement on things, but the Bill’s proposals seek to remove the Central Arbitration Committee and turn co-operation into conflict. We are now being advised that this Secretary of State would be the sole arbiter—this Secretary of State whose arrogant and ignorant performance this afternoon showed us everything that we always suspected: the Government are clueless when it comes to industrial action. This is a Secretary of State who tweeted last year calling the weekend a non-strike day and he is to be the arbiter of this. As Denis Healy once said, there are some people who should be gobsmacked at birth.
Trade union activists could be used as a weapon, with them picked to be the ones attending work, so that they will be the ones challenged to cross a picket line, and if they do not do so, they will be dismissed. That is a completely disproportionate action. In Europe, the norm is that they would lose their pay, which would seem more proportionate than automatic dismissal, with no protection to take that matter forward to industrial tribunal. I will be fundamentally opposing this Bill today, tomorrow and any other day of the week.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that I am a member of Unison.
My constituent, Peter, died in February 2021. He was a proud railwayman. He lived in Leamington and he died of covid. He worked on the frontline through the pandemic. I saw him every week. Like many of the public, I was only able to get to my place of work because of people like Peter, Charlotte, Joe, Nick and others. Elsewhere, emergency service workers, healthcare workers and other frontline workers held this country together, and they are why I want to speak tonight.
We were urged to clap. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister partied. Emerging from the worst of the pandemic, these workers deserve not just our gratitude, but the right reward. The public understand that, and they want resolution to the disputes. They want due recognition for those workers, because the public also understand that, after 12 years of pay frozen or near frozen through austerity, they deserve better. The public know that for many, real wages have fallen since 2010. Nurses receive £5,000 less in real terms. We have the highest inequality of major nations in Europe.
The great irony is that this Government are incapable of meeting minimum standards or service, with the serial breaking of the ministerial code, two Prime Ministers breaking the law and a Government who illegally prorogued Parliament. The public know that this legislation is not necessary. It is a deliberate attempt to distract and to divide opinion, and a further attempt to erode workers’ rights. If Peter were still with us, he would be standing by his colleagues, and he would be striking. It is for Peter and for all those workers that I will be opposing this legislation.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I, too, refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a lifelong trade unionist and a proud member of the GMB and USDAW.
This is truly a winter of discontent visited on the country by the Conservative Government. Railway staff, posties, ambulance staff, bus drivers, border staff, highway workers and driving examiners are on strike, and, for the first time in their 106-year history, so are nurses. Rather than threatening hard-pressed workers, the Government should be sitting around the negotiating table and trying to secure a solution. I support the trade unions and colleagues at the TUC who work tirelessly day in, day out to make life better for working people.
The Bill is a mark of the Government’s failure: they have failed to engage in effective negotiation and now they think that they can legislate their way out of the mess that they have created. Clearly, this is about trying to divert attention. The Government know that the Bill is unworkable and impractical. The Transport Secretary admits that it will not work and the Education Secretary does not want it. It represents one of the most restrictive and interventionist attacks on the right to strike for generations. The Government’s proposals are simply undemocratic. The Bill is clearly not about public safety; as we have heard time and again, it does not mention safety once. We all want minimum standards of service and staffing in the NHS and on our railways, but Ministers are failing to provide it at all with their abdication of responsibility.
Collective bargaining is widely recognised as the most effective route for delivering sustainable pay increases; tackling inequality at work; and promoting investment in skills, training and productivity. Rather than adopting the worst practices from other countries, the Government should commit to improving workers’ rights by putting an end to exploitative fire and rehire tactics and promoting collective bargaining.
As a Labour Member of Parliament, I am proud to be working alongside our trade unions to secure a Labour Government, who would provide a new deal for working people and oppose any attempt to undermine trade unions or workers’ rights. A new Labour Government would repeal these measures and sign an employment Bill into law within the first 100 days. When in power, we will end the Tories’ strikes chaos with a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and Government, so that issues are resolved before strikes. Workers in Britain know that Labour is on their side, so let us have that general election and let us have it now. I will oppose the Bill tonight.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I join many of my hon. Friends in declaring an interest in the register. I am proud to be a member of Unite the union and to have spent more than 54 years of my life in the labour movement, fighting for workers on the shop floor as a steward and convenor, and across the north-west of England as a Unite regional secretary.
The Business Secretary sought to assure hon. Members that the Government will “always defend” workers’
“ability to withdraw their labour”.—[Official Report, 10 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 432.]
I can only conclude that, in his rush to steamroll the Bill through the Commons, he has neglected to read it, because it sets out to do the direct opposite—to deny working people their democratic right to engage in lawful and legitimate strike action.
Last week, I warned that the Government are attempting to achieve through legislation what they have been unable to secure in negotiations with the trade unions, but the Business Secretary is gravely mistaken if he believes that the Bill will put an end to the wave of industrial action that we are now witnessing. It is not a recipe for harmonious workplace relations, but the exact opposite. Indeed, this draconian response to the same key workers who Ministers applauded through the pandemic will only strengthen the strikers’ resolve while forcing unions to find more creative and disruptive ways to make their voices heard.
The Business Secretary must also understand that the labour movement is prepared to fight these proposals all the way through this House and in the other place, through the courts, and through workplaces all over the country. He believes that he can bully working people into submission; we will prove him wrong. Soon enough, the Government will find themselves in court having to explain how the Bill can be reconciled with the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights, not to mention convention 87 of the International Labour Organisation.
The legal minefield awaiting Ministers in the court of law is nothing compared with the reckoning that awaits them in the court of public opinion. The British public do not support this Bill. When they see the architects of austerity condemning frontline workers for striking for fair pay, they know whose side they are on. They recognise that the issues now driving ambulance drivers, nurses and firefighters to the picket line—from low pay to unsustainable workloads—are the same issues that they face in their own working lives, and they understand that strikes are not to blame for our broken rail network and overwhelmed hospitals. These strikes are not the cause but rather the symptom of a crumbling public sector that has been hollowed to its core by 12 long years of Tory cuts.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud member of Unite the union.
“The trade unions are a long-established and essential part of our national life. We take our stand by these pillars of our British society as it has gradually developed and evolved itself, of the right of individual labouring men to adjust their wages and conditions by collective bargaining, including the right to strike.”
They are not the words of a trade union giant, nor even of a Labour politician. They are the words of the late Winston Churchill, but today his own party intends to unashamedly deny workers the very fundamental rights that he believed in with a Bill that threatens key workers with the sack for simply exercising their right to raise the alarm on low pay, erosion of terms and conditions, and grave concerns over the safety and future of their sectors.
Worse still, the Government do this in the full knowledge that the provisions of the Bill are almost certainly illegal. That includes breaching the Human Rights Act 1998, the European convention on human rights, International Labour Organisation conventions and various other statutes. The Government shamefully claim that the reason behind this legislation is that NHS trade unions were not providing minimum service agreements on strike days. That just is not true. Our ambulance workers, like our nurses, have never gone on strike without first putting agreements for life-and-limb cover in place. It is therefore no surprise that the Government have refused to publish any required impact assessments. What is even more absurd is the notion that this Bill will somehow reduce the propensity for strike action. We only need to look back in history to know that such authoritarian legislation has the opposite effect.
Instead of introducing this Bill, the Government should be listening to the concerns of key workers and facilitating negotiations. Instead they seek to divide a nation and demonise, demoralise and even threaten to sack the very workforce who have tried to hold our country together. Returning to Winston Churchill, there are no Winston Churchills on the Government Benches today, and I have no doubt that he would be absolutely devastated and disgusted that his party is treating our workforce with such disdain.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was also a trade union lawyer for 10 years before being elected to Parliament.
This Bill comes in the context of an attack on the right to vote, an attack on the right to protest peacefully and, now, an attack on the democratic right to strike. I want to read out what Human Rights Watch said last week:
“In 2022, we saw the most significant assault on human rights protections… in decades”.
It went on to warn that
“fundamental and hard-won rights are being systematically dismantled.”
In the light of that, I want in the time I have to look at a few key provisions in the Bill, which is part and parcel of that authoritarian attack on our hard-won rights. The very first clause makes no bones about it. Clause 1 explicitly says that the Bill is about restricting
“the protection…to trade unions and employees in respect of strikes”.
Moving on to the schedule, it talks about the
“Power of Secretary of State to specify minimum service levels”.
The Bill does not specify what the minimum service levels should be, so we have to ask ourselves this question: do we think it is right to hand to the Secretary of State as an individual the power to make such decisions? What level of service requirement would be seen as going too far in the eyes of an anti-union, union-bashing, right-wing Conservative Secretary of State—40%, 60%, 85%, 90%—if there is some trouble in the Tory party, and they want to throw some red meat to their hard-right Back Benchers and party members? This should concern us all.
We then move on to the broad categories of the services covered. How will “education services” or “transport services” be interpreted? Very widely I expect. The Bill states that a work notice must
“identify the persons required to work during the strike and…specify the work required to be carried out”.
This is chilling authoritarianism. Workers who lawfully voted to strike will be ordered to go to work. That is chilling. Finally, work notices offer no protection if a union fails to take reasonable steps. That completely changes the role of trade unions. It is absolutely appalling. Trade union officials will be expected outside the workplace on picket lines, telling workers who voted lawfully to strike to go to work. That completely subverts and changes the role of trade unions and attacks them as institutions. This Bill is appalling—it needs to be dropped.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I stand as a proud trade unionist in solidarity with my constituents who are taking strike action, and with workers across the country. We are seeing widespread strikes in the public sector because of the abject failure of more than 12 years of Conservative government. The Government have pushed nurses, ambulance workers and other dedicated NHS staff to the brink. They are taking strike action not only on pay, but as part of their campaign for patient safety and, as they have told me, to save the national health service. The Government now want to repay them by threatening to sack them for doing so. My constituents have written to me to tell me that they are appalled. The Bill is a shameful attack on the rights of working people. Richard Arthur, head of trade union law at Thompsons Solicitors, said:
“The introduction of minimum safety levels does not comply with the United Kingdom’s legal obligations under Convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organisation on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
He is one of many who expect there to be legal challenges to the Bill.
Last October, the Government published the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, allowing minimum service levels to be introduced during strikes in certain transport services. It seems that that Bill has now been superseded by the one we are debating. In the European convention on human rights memorandum that accompanied the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, the Government set out why minimum service requirements would not apply to other sectors. Just a few months ago they were clear that “important factors” already existed in other sectors
“to mitigate the impacts of industrial action in those sectors on wider society.”
For example, in health, they pointed to the fact that unions include guidance to their members on their approach to life-and-limb arrangements. So why have Ministers changed their minds?
The Government now say that they are
“introducing this legislation to ensure that striking workers don’t put the public’s lives at risk.”
That is an insult to workers who kept the country running during the covid-19 pandemic, putting themselves at considerable risk. In particular, it is an insult to nursing unions and representative bodies that worked hard to ensure that there would be cover for urgent cases during their strike. As the TUC points out, the Bill is the Government’s
“latest attack on the right to strike”,
and I will be voting against it this evening.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud former employee of the University and College Union. I am also a proud member of Unite.
This Bill exposes this Tory Government’s contempt and disregard for working people, whose difficulties have been caused by them. Its purpose is to dismantle the trade union movement and workers’ rights, and it entrusts yet greater powers to the Government. It is authoritarian and an affront to democracy. The Bill does not establish minimum service levels for strikes. Those will follow in regulations, deprived of the proper scrutiny afforded to primary legislation. It does not ensure the safety of the public in times of industrial action—unions in relevant sectors already do that. So what is it for? As Mick Lynch of the RMT has said, this law is “a form of conscription” that would allow employers to choose how many striking employees they wanted to force to work.
The Conservatives have spent 12 years creating a low-pay Britain. Now that trade unions are effectively organising to lift people’s pay, the Tory party is concerned that it has lost control, and wishes to restore it. The Bill allows employers to sack individuals for participating in legitimate industrial action. It enables employers to sue trade unions for not forcing workers to cross the picket line, placing unions at risk of incurring significant costs that could cause the demise of trade unions. It will give enormous powers to the Secretary of State and to employers.
The Bill is also drafted without necessary detail or substance. There has been no consultation and no impact assessment. It is an imposition to weaken and even dismantle the trade union movement.
The UK Government are introducing a Bill that will overrule the powers and policies of the devolved Governments as the Welsh Government introduces a social partnership Bill. As Welsh Government’s Counsel General, Mick Antoniw, said:
“It is a fundamental attack on freedoms, and as Welsh Government we will give it no credence or support”.
Having sat in the Chamber and listened to all contributions intently, I must take issue with the myths propagated about, and vilification of, our key workers and trade unionists. All people want is fair, decent pay, terms and conditions and to protect our vital public services. Surely all of us in the Chamber should support that. I will oppose the Bill this evening.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I ask those who took part in the debate please to come to the Chamber for the wind-ups, which will begin no later than 9.40 pm.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I would be worried if I did not—that would show that my constituency Labour party fundraising strategy had failed.
It is important that the Conservatives know this. We know what the motivation for the Bill is. Do not insult the intelligence of this House or the British people by saying that it has anything whatsoever to do with emergency measures. We have all negotiated those over the years—they have been in existence for decades, since the beginning of the trade union movement.
The motivations are these. First, the Bill is an attempt to try to threaten those in negotiations at the moment. Well, that has really worked: today, nine out of 10 teachers voted for industrial action. The second was the usual distraction. In the past, when Tory Governments were failing, they would usually create a war and send a gunboat. Mrs Thatcher then decided that the real enemy was within. We have heard that same language today of trade union “barons” holding the country to ransom—all of that. That is distraction. The real motivation is the one that they have had since the 1980s, which is to shift the balance of power from labour to capital and from workers to employers. That strategy has worked. It has worked so well that it has impoverished working-class people, and that is why they are coming out on strike. They cannot survive on the wages that they have got.
Labour Members will oppose the Bill in this House. There will be opposition in the other place as well. Labour will scrap the Bill as soon as we get into power. But I warn the Conservatives of this. The real opposition will not come in here; it will be out there. It will be from working people—trade unionists. When the first trade unionist is sacked and the first trade union is fined, the Government will foul the industrial relations of the country for a generation, and the people will be out there. I will be out there with them.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to be a Unite and GMB member—I point to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—as well as the former head of health at Unite, negotiating level of service agreements. I have never heard such misinformation as I have in the House today. Amid an economic crash and public services on their knees, we know that the morale of working people on the frontline is at rock-bottom as they are stressed out of their minds and struggling with low pay. This reckless Bill not only impacts on them but sours industrial relations and does nothing to resolve disputes. In fact, it will stoke more strikes and push workers into working to rule. The Minister will then have a problem on his hands as he learns how much unpaid overtime working people give.
The strikes are the canary in the mine of the biggest retention crisis in the history of our public services. Ministers should heed those warnings before things get even worse. Tonight, I am proud that we are voting against this regressive legislation, because I would rather have clinicians and frontline workers negotiating safety agreements than Ministers in Whitehall, who are clearly so out of touch.
When it comes to the ambulance service, there are 10 trusts, and each one negotiates its safety levels, as does each hospital and each clinic. That is because there are different pressures on each one, and it is vital that each has a separate negotiation determined locally to ensure that services are safe locally, not dictated by Whitehall. All the Minister needs to do is aggregate those negotiations to achieve those safe working levels. “Life and limb” was set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—he can read it for himself—where there is an obligation to ensure that human life is saved.
We know what happens on strike days: they are safer than the rest of the time. Trains are not running, hospitals are not properly staffed and there are 133,000 vacancies in the NHS, yet on strike days Christmas day cover, essentially, is provided. Hospitals that were running red, ran green on strike days. Waits for the ambulance service were cut by 10%. They were safer for the public because frontline workers really care about their patients—that is why they are still working under such dreadful conditions.
This is a sham of a Bill, while there is still a need to put money on the table, to negotiate and to resolve these disputes. I say to the Government: stop walking away and stop playing games. Get back to work and get back to the negotiating table.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Geraint Davies, GMB, Swansea West constituency Labour party. [Laughter.]
The Tories have impoverished Britain and now working people who cannot afford to put food on the table, heat their bedrooms or pay their rent or mortgage, face a pay cut or the sack if they vote, along with over 50% of their trade union members, to defend their families, communities, towns and cities. It is an absolute disgrace. The Tories refuse to negotiate. They prefer disruption and chaos to cause political division. They just say, “Like it or lump it” unless, of course, you are a banker with a bonus, a crony with a contract or a donor with a dividend.
Our nurses witnessed thousands of their colleagues dying through a lack of personal protective equipment and, alongside that, billions of pounds given to Tory donors to provide that PPE. Nurses who spent their own money for three years to get a BSc now face a starting salary of £13.84 an hour, when they could start in McDonald’s for £12.25 without the stress and with the overtime.
The NHS faces long covid, more older people coming back from the EU, sicker people, and one in four people in poverty. It costs more to treat those people and there is much greater pressure on the system, yet the Tories turn their back and threaten NHS workers with a strike. The truth is that had the economy grown at the same rate as it did under the Labour Government, average wages would be £10,000 higher and we would not be facing this appalling situation. Instead, the Tories want strikes to create a diversion from that and to create a sort of Dickensian Britain where capital gains and labour loses.
The right to democratically vote to go on strike and not be sacked is a fundamental right. The Tories are torpedoing talks, whether on rail, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea or the nurses. They want to create strikes to cast blame, but frankly the public will not be fooled by their political attempt, in their authoritarian journey, to divide Britain. That is not who we are.
The Tories are isolating Britain. They are shaming Britain. They are dividing Britain. Britain deserves better. Britain deserves a Labour Government and a Labour Government will repeal this appalling draconian Bill.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me start by declaring my interests and my registrations as a trade union member.
This has been a hugely well-supported debate, with no fewer than 38 speeches from the Opposition Back Benches. As many of those speeches identified, there is certainly a pattern with this Government. When people began to protest in large numbers against their policies, they responded by making it harder to protest. When the polls turned and people made it clear they wanted to vote them out of office, they responded by making it harder to vote. Now, when paramedics, nurses, transport workers and many other professions decide, in desperation and as a last resort, to go on strike, rather than listen to them and negotiate, the Government are responding by making it harder to strike. Let me put it in simple terms for Conservative colleagues: “The problem isn’t them—it’s you.” The Conservative party has built this Britain of low pay, low resilience and insecurity, but instead of listening to the voices of the people most affected, Conservative Members have turned up today to try to take away their rights.
The Bill is not so much a proposal as an alibi. It is an attempt to deflect the blame for this country’s problems, particularly the condition of public services, away from the Government and on to the workforce themselves. It is a fairly transparent attempt to pretend that industrial action is the cause, rather than the symptom, of the poor state of public services. I think I speak for every Member on the Opposition Benches when I say that we reject that cynical attempt entirely. When we clapped key workers, we actually meant it. I can only imagine how they will feel watching this debate and having to listen to the people who crashed our economy, adding thousands to mortgage payments, giving them lectures now on pay restraint.
Imagine a police officer who has seen the Conservatives cutting the police so much that they can no longer respond to burglaries, a teacher struggling with class sizes and special educational needs and disabilities referrals, or a nurse on an understaffed ward in a busy NHS hospital this weekend. Imagine those workers hearing this Government having the audacity to talk today about minimum guaranteed levels of service. We have not had a minimum level of service from this Government for 13 long years. After 13 years of a Conservative Government, not a single public service is working better today than it was when the Conservatives came to power.
Even worse is what has happened to growth, productivity and wages in that time. Let us remember that we are not expecting to see UK wages return to 2008 levels until 2027. That is why times are so hard. That is why we are seeing so many people taking strike action—and that is despite the fact that in the UK it is actually quite hard to go on strike. We do not have a legal framework that allows industrial action to happen lightly.
Even so, many of the strikes that we have seen recently could have been avoided. Nurses have never been forced to strike in this country—until now. The offer to halt strike action before Christmas was made. All that was needed was negotiation. We needed the Government to listen, to negotiate, to work through the problems, to compromise and to lead, but that is not how this Government operate. Instead we have this Bill. As we have heard from so many of my hon. Friends today, its proposals are unnecessary, unethical and unworkable. In the brief time that I have, I will address each point in turn.
First, this legislation is unnecessary and is likely to make industrial disputes worse. Minimum service levels are not a recipe for industrial stability. What I find so abhorrent about the Bill is the assumption it makes about working people. We have heard it so many times today: the assumption that striking workers do not care about the people who rely on their services or the patients they are nursing back to health. That is completely wrong. As every one of my hon. Friends has said, in essential sectors we already see minimum service agreements being voluntarily negotiated. We have seen viral videos of workers leaving picket lines to implement those voluntary agreements. Where national agreements are not made, such as with the ambulance service, it is because they are done on a local basis, reflecting local circumstances. What this legislation will do is undermine the good will and good faith that are essential to making minimum service levels work.
We have also heard a repeated claim that the Bill will simply bring us in line with other European countries—remarkably, it seems that the Conservatives have finally found an area in which they see the advantages of common European alignment. But those countries combine their laws with much stronger employment rights, including collective bargaining, and these measures are part of that package. More than 95% of employees in France are covered by collective bargaining agreements. Additionally, it is still a poor argument because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) said, France has lost almost six times as many days to strikes as the UK in recent times. In Spain the figure is more than double, and minimum service levels there have led to protracted legal battles, further prolonging disputes, not solving them. The evidence is compelling, if we look for it, that this approach is flawed.
Secondly, these measures are unethical. The scope of the Bill is huge, affecting as many as 6 million workers. Whether we agree or disagree with the merits of any one particular strike action, the right to strike is a fundamental right that every one of us has, except in the specific circumstances applying to occupations such as the armed forces. So many Conservative speakers have said today that they support that right, as long as the strike in question has no impact. That is meaningless. Conservatives used to worry about the power of the state over the individual, but we have not heard much of that today—and, crucially, the Conservative party has no mandate for this, because the manifesto commitment mentioned only the transport sector. That is likely to be a significant issue in the House of Lords.
Finally, these plans are unworkable. They will start a torrent of legal claims and counter-claims as people understandably resent the direction that the Government have taken and seek to challenge it. They will also prolong disputes by preventing workers from making the point that industrial action is designed to make.
The Business Secretary said something revealing in his opening statement: he said that he hoped he would never have to use these powers. In other words, this is all for show. It is a weak attempt by the Government to say that they are doing something when they are not doing anything to address the underlying causes. All the Members who will vote for the Bill tonight must be praying that its provisions are indeed never activated, because if the Government ever do use it, the net result will be teachers, doctors, nurses, firefighters and more turning up at Conservative Members’ surgeries or standing outside their offices, asking their MPs if they really do want to sack them. Has the Conservative party really thought this through? Is that how we will improve public services, and address the recruitment problems of which we are all aware? The truth is that the Conservatives have gone from clapping workers to sacking workers in just three short Prime Ministers.
These proposals strike me as the last gasps of a Government who are at the end of their tether. This is not a serious proposal to resolve the industrial action that the UK is experiencing. I repeat that it is a sideshow, it will not work, and in fact it is likely to make things even worse. Above all, it completely fails to recognise what every good business knows: that the biggest asset any organisation has is its people, and when those people are driven to extremes and are going on strike in record numbers, we simply have to listen to them. Look at the turnouts in the ballots, and at the strength of the votes that have taken place. We do understand that: there were no nurses’ strikes under the last Labour Government, and there are no rail strikes in Wales under the Welsh Labour Government.
Our plans will address the workforce problems in the NHS with revenue from ending the non-dom rule. Our plans for energy security, industrial strategy and making Brexit work will get the economy growing again, and we will put good jobs and good work at the heart of those plans. The simple truth is this: the Government cannot end these strikes because 13 years of Conservative Government are the cause of these strikes. The sooner they make way for the people who can build the fairer, stronger, more prosperous and more secure country that Britain could be, the better it will be for everyone.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)
I thank the Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the debate.
The clear objective of the Bill is to protect the lives and livelihoods of the public by enabling minimum service levels to be applied to our vital public services during strikes. It does not ban the right to strike. It finds the right balance, which was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra)—who made some important points about the needs of business—and my hon. Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), for Guildford (Angela Richardson), for Southend West (Anna Firth) and for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti).
Let me turn to some of the other points raised today. Like others on both sides of the House, I pay tribute and express our gratitude to our public sector key workers. That point was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who have vast experience of working in the public sector. I have my own personal experience, as my mother worked in the public sector all her life—a life worked to rehabilitate offenders. I am aware of the contribution that public sector workers make to our society.
The deputy leader of the Opposition seeks to blame this Government alone for the challenging times we face, but she seems conveniently to forget that we are still not free from the after-effects of the covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I was very interested in a point she raised in her speech, when she said, “We would have resolved this dispute long ago.” At what figure? Would it have been 11% across the public sector? That would have cost the taxpayers of this country £28 billion. That is £1,000 per household per annum. Maybe the leader of the Opposition will reflect on that now that he is here, obviously having had a call from his union paymasters.
Members ask why the Government are focusing on legislating and not resolving the disputes. The Government recognise the pressure of the cost of living on people. That is why we have committed to halving inflation and growing the economy, and why we have provided £26 billion to support individuals and businesses. We are investing billions more in schools, the NHS and social care. All that supports workers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) is right to highlight the devastating impact of strikes on the economy—£6 billion, including £2.5 billion of lost income to the hospitality sector alone. That is why Ministers across Government have been meeting unions to resolve the disputes where it is possible to do so.
Sarah Owen
The Minister talks about the cost of strike action, but will he agree about the cost of the damage that the previous Prime Minister and the previous Chancellor did to our country and all the taxpayers and workers who we on the Opposition Benches are supporting today?
Kevin Hollinrake
I would highlight the downward pressure already placed on inflation, the changes to the money markets following the action taken by our Chancellor and Prime Minister and the stability being delivered through their future plan.
Kevin Hollinrake
I will shortly. Ministers across Government have been meeting unions to resolve the disputes where it is possible to do so. It is obviously apparent that unions exist to represent union members. Apparently, from today’s debate, so does the Labour party. The shadow Cabinet alone has received £350,000 since 2019. It is important to reflect on those figures. We need to have the confidence that when workers strike, people’s lives and livelihoods are not put at risk, so we need the power to act. That is why this legislation is needed. The public expect us to act. It is no wonder that YouGov polling for The Times published last week found that 56% of voters support this legislation and only 31% are against it.
Barry Gardiner
The Minister will know that under this Bill it is possible for the Government to designate workers to perform under a contract when they have voted to go on strike. Will he at least give an assurance that there will be no attempt by any Secretary of State to designate a union official to break a strike that they have encouraged their union members to be involved in?
Kevin Hollinrake
I will deal with work notices later in my speech, but it is clear that it is up to employers to decide what workers are needed on certain days, and there is no discrimination between people who are union members and people who are not. That is very clear in the legislation. Hon. Members have questioned the sectors within the Bill. The sectors in scope of the Bill are justified as these sectors are where strike action causes disproportionate disruption to the general public.
Mr Gagan Mohindra
The Minister is making an excellent summing up, as always. Could he reaffirm that public opinion is with this side of the House rather than with the Opposition?
Kevin Hollinrake
I think that the polling is very clear. We have heard precious little about what the public think of this. We heard a lot about the impact on public sector workers, but the public themselves are with us on this legislation.
The Government have already announced their intention to consult on the application of minimum service levels for rail, ambulance and fire services. I welcome Members’ questions and suggestions on how minimum service levels will operate in specific services, and I note in particular the helpful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and for West Dorset (Chris Loder). I look forward to the contribution of key stakeholders and experts during the consultation process. The Government will also engage with the devolved Administrations during the consultation process. The Government have been clear, however, that we may choose not to use the regulation-making powers in the Bill if adequate voluntary arrangements, where necessary, are already in place between employers in a relevant sector.
This legislation also equips employers to manage instances where a worker takes strike action despite being named to work on a strike day. It is at the discretion of employers as to what action, if any, is taken, and we hope that employers are fair and reasonable. The claim that it is a policy of this Government to sack workers is an unfair exaggeration.
I want to touch on the international examples, mentioned in the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris). The concept of minimum service levels is not new. They are used all over the world, including in the USA, Canada and a number of European countries including Spain and Italy. We all want to see an end to these strikes.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
No, we still have another two and a bit minutes to run, so I am using my discretion not to accept that.
Kevin Hollinrake
In response to questions regarding the consistency of this legislation with the UK’s—
David Linden
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).
The House proceeded to a Division.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has said that it will cost the Government £28 billion to settle the dispute with our public service workers. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that it will actually cost the public a significantly lower figure, £14 billion, to meet the public sector demands. Is there a way in which we can get the Minister to correct the record on the Floor of the House?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the content of any speeches, be they ministerial or Back-Bench contributions, but it is well evidenced that if any Member finds out that they have unwittingly misled the House, they must correct the record at the earliest possible opportunity.
Business without Debate
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 5 to 8 together.
Ordered,
European Statutory Instruments Committee
That Richard Thomson be discharged from the European Statutory Instruments Committee and Peter Grant be added.
Procedure Committee
That Bambos Charalambous be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Tonia Antoniazzi be added.
Select Committee on Statutory Instruments
That Richard Thomson be discharged from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and Peter Grant be added.
Treasury Committee
That Alison Thewliss be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Douglas Chapman be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Selection Committee.)
Cancer Outcomes: Tees Valley
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I would like to open my remarks tonight by paying tribute to the late Professor Stephen Bonner, whose obituary features in The Times today. Professor Bonner delivered marvellous service to the people of Teesside in his various roles delivering critical care at James Cook University Hospital, including the major expansion in the number of our intensive care and high dependency beds and his astonishing success in making James Cook the best place for junior doctors and student nurses to train in intensive care in 2016. It is entirely fitting that in a debate on health services in the Tees Valley we should recognise his enormous contribution to our lives locally. So many of my constituents have reason to be grateful to him. Professor Bonner’s obituary tragically relates:
“With their sons growing up, Bonner and his wife planned for a gradual retirement, but just as he was about to put the plan into action he received a diagnosis of inoperable bowel cancer. Bonner had spent decades improving the system, but the bowel screening test that would have diagnosed the cancer early…had been cancelled during the pandemic.”
That brings me squarely back to the subject of this debate and the particular importance of cancer screening, because ultimately that is at the heart of making sure we improve cancer care nationally as well as locally on Teesside.
A cancer diagnosis is news none of us ever wants to receive, but the reality is that someone in the UK does every 90 seconds. One in two of us will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in our lives. Even those of us not directly affected will undoubtedly have family members and friends who are. Some of the most emotional conversations I have had with constituents have been about the struggles faced by loved ones supporting relatives in their final weeks.
The scale of the challenge posed by cancer is particularly acute in the Tees Valley. The north-east of England has the highest age standardised cancer rate of any English region for both men and women. The incidence rate for female patients is 15% higher than in London, which is the region with the lowest incidence. The difference for male patients who experience higher incidence rates overall is more than 8% higher than the best performing region. The Tees Valley’s industrial heritage is, I am afraid, yielding a grim harvest. There are particular challenges with regard to historic exposure to environmental carcinogens resulting in higher rates of lung cancer and myeloma in particular.
My home area is now at the forefront of progress on much of what is good about the Government’s levelling-up programme under the leadership of Ben Houchen, but the legacy issues persist from our very challenging economic past and the deep deprivation our area continues to suffer from. Smoking and obesity rates are higher than the national average. That context at the very least contributes to Middlesbrough being ranked 140th out of 150 local authorities for premature cancer deaths by Public Health England.
The good news is that thanks to research, many more people are either beating cancer or living much longer with cancer. Macmillan estimates that in 2020, 3 million people across the UK were living with cancer. That is forecast to rise to some 5.3 million by 2040. Median cancer survival has improved hugely as a result of advances in diagnosis and treatment, but there is a lot further to go. We ought to pay tribute at this point to the fantastic effort of those individuals and community groups who are touched by this horrible disease and have decided to make a positive difference to the challenge they have faced. I refer here to Guisborough-raised jockey Bob Champion, who has done a huge amount through the Bob Champion Cancer Trust. He has raised some £12 million over the last 30 years.
On a smaller and more local scale, I pay particular tribute to Claire Starsmore and the amazing East Cleveland Pink Ladies, who have raised £131,000 for Cancer Research UK over the past decade in memory of their much-loved friend Jacqui Hampton. The annual Pink Ball is one of the highlights of the East Cleveland social calendar—I am very much looking forward to attending the 10th version in November, which is firmly in my diary. That kind of event makes the cancer fight very personal and very tangible.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am pleased that another Tees MP is so engaged with the subject. I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Professor Bonner for all his work for people in my constituency as well as in his own.
The right hon. Gentleman has already recognised the importance of the early diagnosis of cancer and other diseases to tackling health inequalities in his constituency and mine. Will he join me in congratulating North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust and Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council on their joint campaign over many years to secure a diagnostic centre for our new-look town centre, which was confirmed by the Minister earlier today?
Mr Clarke
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: this is a subject that crosses party boundaries and constituency boundaries. The contribution of everyone who has fought to ensure that we deliver the best possible cancer care across Teesside is undoubtedly to be applauded. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks about what the Government’s pioneering work to deliver community diagnostic centres will bring to the Tees valley.
I referred a moment ago to the Pink Ball. On the same note, I pay tribute to Councillor Craig Holmes of Skelton West in my constituency, who has raised thousands of pounds for cancer charities through events including the annual Minersfest, an extraordinary music festival in East Cleveland, at which you would always be welcome, Mr Deputy Speaker. Such efforts are incredible tributes—in this case, a tribute to Craig’s mum Alison, who sadly lost her battle with cancer in 2013—and bring huge enjoyment to thousands of local people.
There is much more that we need to do to reduce the average of 460 deaths per day from cancer in the United Kingdom. One of the strongest predictors of cancer outcomes is how early a diagnosis is made and treatment is started. It is estimated that for every week earlier that the treatment of cancer commences, the chance of five-year survival increases by at least 1.5%, so it makes a material difference.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
May I share in the warm words of tribute to Professor Bonner from the right hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour? Like me, he is very much aware of the superb, world-class work that goes on at the James Cook University Hospital’s oncology department. It has six linear accelerators with a lifespan of about 10 years, but half of them are now reaching the end of their natural life, and as they break down they are becoming less efficient. Does he share my plea to the Department of Health and Social Care and the Treasury to ensure that the necessary funding is made available to the James Cook University Hospital and the trust to carry on their vital, life-saving work for our constituents across Teesside and beyond?
Mr Clarke
I echo what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of ensuring that our equipment is absolutely the best it can be. I had the privilege of seeing the new equipment at the James Cook’s interventional radiology department before Christmas, which was incredibly impressive. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that such investment is vital to ensuring that once treatment commences, people can get the best possible care.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman is being staggeringly generous in giving way; it is noted and appreciated. The technology is important, but what is also important is where it is. I echo the call for linear accelerators to be up-to-date so that radiotherapy treatment is as up-to-date as possible. That is incredibly important, but the National Radiotherapy Advisory Group also says that nobody who needs radiotherapy should have to travel for more than 45 minutes to get it. Areas a little more rural than Middlesbrough may face lengthy journeys; there is nobody at all in Westmorland who lives within 45 minutes of our nearest radiotherapy centre. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that having satellite units, with linear accelerators placed away from the main centre—for us, that would be in Kendal—would be one way of ensuring that people in more remote and rural communities get the treatment they need so that their life can be longer?
Mr Clarke
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Representing East Cleveland as I do, I have some insight into the challenges of distance in rural areas. Bringing care to people to the greatest extent possible and commensurate with the challenges is vital, particularly for things like screening.
That leads me neatly to a point raised by Mr Jonathan Ferguson, the consultant lung surgeon at the James Cook University Hospital in Middlesbrough and clinical cancer lead for South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. He has done much to bring to my attention the fantastic work that is already going on in the Tees Valley to increase early diagnoses. Much of that work is clearly led by him, although he is far too modest to say so. Jonathan is a linchpin of our local healthcare system, and a hugely impressive consultant. In the light of the impact of covid, this progress is more vital than ever. Macmillan estimated that by March last year there were still at least 37,000 fewer cancer diagnoses than expected as a result of the disruption caused by the pandemic. It is clearly vital for us to address that.
Over the last 12 months, Mr Ferguson has been the driving force for the new targeted lung health check programme in the Tees Valley. That region-wide service is now up and running, identifying curable cancers that would otherwise have been undetected for longer through effective collaboration between local NHS teams and an independent-sector diagnostic specialist. This approach has identified a curable cancer every two days, which is fantastic, through scanners operating 12 hours a day, seven days a week, from mobile units—a subject raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron)—in supermarket car parks, with the facility operating at a 97% occupancy rate, which is wonderful. The facility is staffed and appointments are managed by the independent partner, with target patients identified through NHS records and an initial telephone questionnaire.
This enables our brilliant local NHS teams to focus on treating patients and tackling the backlogs, which we know will allow them to deliver great results. The superb clinicians at the James Cook University Hospital have an excellent track record of innovating to improve patient care, with recent initiatives including the Macmillan-supported thoracic surgery community nursing programme, which won the Nursing Times award for the best surgical nursing team. It has reduced both the length of hospital stays and readmission rates for patients following thoracic surgery. Many of those are, of course, lung cancer patients.
It is exciting to hear the proposals for a new Tees Valley diagnostic hub in Stockton, which I think the Minister will say more about in her speech—I look forward to that. It was originally not expected to welcome patients until 2025, but it has been fast-tracked and is now expected to open much sooner. Mr Ferguson believes passionately that opening the hub this year would
“save more lives on Teesside than I have throughout my surgical career”,
so we should all welcome it warmly, given the practical difference it will make on the ground.
I know it is a mission of this Government to ensure that we address health disparities, and there is probably nowhere in England where a greater difference can be made than on Teesside. I am joined tonight by my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton South (Matt Vickers), for Redcar (Jacob Young) and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), and we are all very grateful for the action that the Government have taken.
When we are looking at our future options, we should bear in mind that the more we can do with the private sector as well to increase our capacity, the better. Through what he has been doing with his supermarket car park screening, Mr Ferguson has shown the value of such partnerships in unlocking extra capacity. I urge the Government to look at all the options to ensure that we can get the maximum number of people through the system, receiving the care that they need through all parts of our healthcare system.
Coupled with last week’s exciting announcement about the cancer vaccines trial partnership between the Department of Health and Social Care and BioNTech—which could allow eligible patients in England early access to revolutionary personalised mRNA therapies through trials as soon as next autumn—are the Government’s significant steps to give cancer patients improved chances of survival, and to give families and friends more precious time to spend together. I know that colleagues on both sides of the House will join me in welcoming those efforts, which will make an enormous difference to our constituents.
This is a practical and tangible debate on an issue that touches nearly every family at some point. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what the Government are doing to ensure that cancer outcomes across Teesside continue to improve in the way that has been so encouraging to us all so far.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Helen Whately)
Let me begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) for securing this debate. He has been working hard to make sure that his constituents get faster diagnosis and better treatment for cancer. He mentioned working together with his constituents on the clinical side, doing tremendous work to lead efforts to diagnose and care for people in his area, as well as fundraising. I heard him mention the Pink Ball, which sounds tremendous. I pass on many congratulations to all those involved and commend them for their work.
As my right hon. Friend said, many people are affected by cancer, whether due to a diagnosis themselves or somebody they are close to. Many people have therefore lived through that difficult experience of waiting to hear whether they will be diagnosed with cancer, or have the all-clear after being referred for testing. For patients with cancer, it is quite simple: faster diagnosis saves lives. That is why this Government are helping the NHS recover and transform health services in the aftermath of the pandemic, with a particular focus on the earlier diagnosis of cancer.
I will talk a little about what we are doing nationally, but I will focus on my right hon. Friend’s constituency. He mentioned the high prevalence of cancer in his constituency and the wider Tees Valley. To give a sense of the scale, in 2020, there were just under 4,000 cancer diagnoses in the Tees Valley, so that gives a sense of the number of people who could benefit from faster diagnosis, which we know can improve outcomes. There is more that we can and should do to prevent people, both nationally and in the Tees Valley, from developing cancer in the first place, such as policies that help people maintain a healthy weight and lifestyle and stop smoking, and promoting the uptake of the HPV vaccine, particularly in groups where coverage is lower.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister mentioned my magic word—smoking. Could she give us some indication of when the Government will bring forward the tobacco control plan? She recognises, as I do, that in the most deprived inner-city communities the incidence of smoking is higher and lung cancer is higher as a result. I would be interested to know what plans she has to bring that forward.
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to pick up on what I said about the importance of supporting people to stop smoking, but for the sake of this Adjournment debate I will focus on responding to my right hon. Friend’s speech, particularly looking at cancer diagnostic services.
We want to level up diagnostic services for cancer around the country so that people with symptoms of potential cancer can receive an accurate diagnosis and begin treatment as quickly as possible. That is part of our ambition to reduce health disparities in more deprived areas, such as some areas in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, and to improve early-stage cancer diagnosis rates for all. A key part of improving early diagnoses is ensuring that people come forward when they suspect that they have cancer.
Sadly but understandably, during the pandemic we saw the number of urgent referrals for cancer fall, but it is positive that in the North East and North Cumbria integrated care board over 13,000 patients had their first consultation appointment following an urgent GP referral in November last year. That is an 18% increase from November 2020 during the pandemic, and nearly a 20% increase on the figures for November 2019 prior to the pandemic. That indicates that in the Tees Valley, as we are seeing across the country, people are coming forward to be diagnosed or discover that they have the all-clear from cancer, which is the case for most people.
In a moment I will talk about our innovative new community diagnostic centre programme, but first I want to highlight some of the other things we are doing to improve the early diagnosis of cancer. One important innovation is introducing the serious non-specific cancer pathway, which Tees Valley has successfully implemented. This means that GPs can refer patients into the service when there are possible symptoms of potential cancer, or someone has a gut feeling that something is not right. That is especially important for patients who do not fit specific pathway referral criteria but whose symptoms are more generic.
In addition, Tees Valley has initiated a programme of targeted lung health checks aimed at people aged between 55 and 74. My right hon. Friend referred to that and the impact that it is having. It is anticipated that the programme will result in around 530 diagnoses of lung cancer over the next four years. In deprived areas of Middlesbrough, Hartlepool and Darlington, clinicians are taking part in a trial to assess the benefit of the new GRAIL test that looks for signs of cancer in a sample of blood. This is hugely exciting as it can identify cancer where no symptoms are even present, allowing for earlier diagnosis.
However, the waiting list for diagnostic tests in England currently stands at over 1.59 million patients, with around 26% of those patients waiting more than six weeks. In the North East and Yorkshire region, the waiting list for diagnostic tests has over 200,000 patients, with just over 20% of those waiting more than six weeks. These are figures that we very much want to improve because, as I have said, earlier diagnosis can mean better outcomes. We want to get to the point where 95% of patients needing a diagnostic test receive it within six weeks by March 2025. Equally, early-stage cancer diagnosis is a key ambition of the NHS long-term plan, which aims to ensure that 75% of cancers are identified at stage 1 or stage 2.
Tim Farron
What the Minister says about the waiting time for diagnostics is very troubling. What is even more troubling is that in my part of Cumbria 43% of people who have had a diagnosis of cancer are now waiting more than two months for their first treatment. In North Cumbria and Northumberland, the figure is 62%. Can she say what she is going to do to speed up treatment for those people who have had a diagnosis of cancer?
Helen Whately
Yes of course. More people coming through for referral for cancer diagnosis and increased early rates of diagnosis feed through into us needing to increase the rates of treatment. The NHS is treating more people for cancer, but of course this is taking time because of the increased levels of referrals. We are working very hard to do this.
I want to return to talking particularly about cancer diagnosis and what we are doing to do that earlier, and specifically about the community diagnostic centres that are being rolled out across the country supported by £2.3 billion of capital investment. Local health systems can bid for a share of that funding when they make the case for community need and clinical value, and I am delighted to say that 89 community diagnostic centres are currently operational across the country. Hard-working NHS staff have so far delivered more than 2.7 million additional checks at these centres. Specifically in the Tees Valley, I know that my right hon. Friend has been working with his local NHS to support its proposal for a new diagnostic centre in Stockton-on-Tees, and I can update him with the good news that this new site has been approved, with a planned opening date of December 2023.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Can I thank the Government for this fantastic investment in my part of the town? It will save lives. Also, importantly, can I thank the Government for challenging us locally to deliver it more quickly so that we can save more lives more quickly and make a bigger difference to the community? Thank you very much. We are going to do our best.
Helen Whately
It is good to be able to talk about good news. As my hon. Friend says, his area is not only getting a community diagnostic centre but getting it quicker because the timeframe for doing it has been brought forward. That is tremendous, and I look forward to his area achieving that later this year. It is great that we have been able to announce the date when it will open.
The new Castlegate site for the Tees Valley community diagnostic centre is planned for construction on the Castlegate shopping centre site as part of the local regeneration project. There are excellent transport links, which means that it will be accessible to the whole community. It is important to make these places accessible in order to get people to come forward for testing and screening. This will be the latest addition to the 14 existing community diagnostic centres in the North East and Yorkshire region and the four hub-and-spoke sites in the Tees Valley area, which have so far delivered over 250,000 tests.
Helen Whately
I want to respond to the other comments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, who also raised the important role that the independent sector has to play in meeting the needs of patients. Last month, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care launched the elective recovery taskforce, bringing together academics and healthcare experts to advise the Government on how best to unlock capacity in the independent sector to reduce waiting times. The independent sector is also helping us directly to tackle the diagnostic backlog, providing additional capacity in underserved communities and forming productive partnerships with the NHS to run community diagnostic centres.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) asked about effective treatment, and I am pleased to say that the NHS has treated a record number of people for cancer in the last year, with more than 321,000 people receiving their first cancer treatment between December 2021 and November 2022, which is up by more than 10,000, or 3%, on the same period pre-pandemic. Within the North East and North Cumbria ICB, 1,690 patients started their first treatment for cancer in November 2022. The number has recovered following the pandemic—the equivalent figure for November 2019 is 1,652.
The NHS continues to offer cutting-edge treatments, including newly developed drugs and radiotherapy. Just a week or so ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State signed a memorandum of understanding with BioNTech to bring innovative vaccine research to England, with the potential to transform outcomes for early-stage and late-stage cancer patients.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland for raising this important issue and for his continued commitment to improving cancer care in the north-east and Tees valley region. I encourage him to continue his excellent work with his local NHS system, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and the NHS as we meet the challenge of reducing diagnostic waiting times and improving cancer outcomes.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2023
(1 year, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2023.
The draft order was laid before the House on 22 November 2022; I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate it. The order is part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to devolution. It is made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for legislative provision to be made where it is necessary or expedient in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
In this case, the draft order contains amendments to section 26(1) of the Transport Act 1985, as a consequence of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. Those provide new powers to the traffic commissioner to impose public service vehicle licence conditions on operators who fail to discharge obligations imposed on operators under the 2019 Act and this order.
The 2019 Act is also a multi-topic piece of legislation that was designed to deliver a more responsive and sustainable transport system for everyone in Scotland. The Act makes provision in a range of areas, such as pavement parking, roadworks, workplace parking licensing, smart metering, low emission zones and bus services, the latter three of which are the genesis of the draft order. The Act also empowers local authorities and establishes consistent standards in a range of areas to tackle current and future challenges for transport in Scotland.
I will now explain the effect of the order and the provision that it will make. It will permit the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Joint Air Quality Unit to share vehicle information to relevant Scottish bodies to enable the operation and enforcement of low emission zones.
The order will make provision updating the enforcement regime for the competition test under section 37 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. That will ensure that it applies to a Scottish local transport authority’s functions in relation to bus service improvement partnerships. This replaces the quality partnership model that was introduced in the 2001 Act. The amended enforcement regime will also apply to the making and varying of ticketing schemes made under the 2001 Act after the amended regime comes into force.
The order will make equivalent provision to that made under part 2 of schedule 10 to the Transport Act 2000 to apply a bespoke set of rules to certain agreements, decisions and practices made pursuant to bus service improvement partnerships, in place of the chapter 1 prohibition under the Competition Act 1998.
Furthermore, the order will make provision to ensure that the rights and protections afforded by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006—known as TUPE—will apply to employees who are affected when local services franchising is introduced in an area in Scotland. That includes provision allowing local transport authorities to request certain employee information from bus operators. In connection with that, the order will ensure that pension protection applies to circumstances that are to be treated as “relevant transfer” for the purposes of TUPE, when local services franchising is introduced in an area of Scotland.
Although certain transport matters are devolved to Scotland, I am pleased to support the important legislation through this Scotland Act order on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair of the Committee, Mr Hollobone. We support this draft statutory instrument. As the Minister said, it makes provision to support the enforcement of low emission zones and amends conditions for bus franchising.
Scotland played host to the COP26 conference in Glasgow in 2021, where the UK and others rightly made commitments on getting to net zero. If we are going to reach those goals, as we simply must, low emission zones have to be part of that across the UK. In Holyrood, Labour laid amendments during the progress of the 2019 Act to speed up the process of implementing LEZs and ensure that local authorities did not drag their feet. Has the Minister had discussions with the Scottish Government and local authorities to ensure that LEZs are implemented as intended?
My Labour colleagues in Holyrood successfully amended that Bill to lift the ban on councils running bus services, and thank goodness they did, because bus services in Scotland have deteriorated under the current model. In fact, even before covid, the number of bus journeys in Scotland had fallen by almost a quarter over the past decade—a drop of 107 million journeys.
The quality of bus services is particularly important, because people who use buses often rely on them. People earning less than £15,000 a year are the largest users of buses in Scotland, while 58% of users are women. Analysis by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation concluded that those living in low-income neighbourhoods in Scotland have their employment opportunities limited by unaffordable and unreliable public transport. What discussions has the Minister had with Scottish Government Ministers on ensuring that bus services are available and on time for those who need them?
The order allows employment and pension rights to be protected when franchises change, but, at the same time, the UK Government are introducing legislation to rip up the rights of workers across Britain. Does the Minister think that clapping for frontline workers is compatible with destroying their ability to fight for the pay they deserve?
I appreciate the Minister laying this statutory instrument before Parliament. As I said, we will support it so that we can make much needed progress towards net zero and improving bus services in Scotland.
John Lamont
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her valuable contribution. She asked a number of questions about the order and discussions that the Government have had with the Scottish Government and councils. The important point is that this is an enabling piece of legislation. It is up to local authorities to decide the location of LEZs, for example, and other measures that are being introduced. The intention is not for the order to prescribe those measures, but it will allow local authorities to implement them across Scotland.
The hon. Lady made a number of points on bus services. As a bus user, I very much recognise what she said about the importance of bus services and their availability. Again, that matter is devolved to the Scottish Government. I know from my constituency that the council’s work with local bus providers is key to ensuring that buses are more readily available and that local people are encouraged to use them more than they perhaps have.
The hon. Lady spoke about the legislation going through the House on strikes. The Government are unapologetic about our commitment to ensuring that key services are protected. Strikes should not deprive people of access to NHS services, including ambulances and other critical services on which our constituents are entirely dependent. It is right that the Government can take the action that we are taking to protect those services and our constituents. I am disappointed that she does not agree with those aspirations.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
The Minister must have convinced Scottish National party Members so brilliantly that they have not turned up to this Committee today. Would that be the case, or are they just not interested in devolution in Scotland?
John Lamont
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s important point. It is noticeable that there is no Scottish National party representative at this Committee. An hon. Member was named to attend, but they are not here. That speaks volumes about the party’s commitment to the measure and this extension of devolution powers.
To conclude, the draft order is an example of Scotland’s two Governments—the Scottish Government and this United Kingdom Government—working together for the betterment of Scotland. The order also demonstrates this Government’s commitment to strengthening the devolution settlement and delivering for the people of Scotland; I therefore commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I welcome the massive and unprecedented increase in the monitoring of illegal sewage discharges, and in particular the welcome steps taken by some water companies for live monitoring so that people can see in real time where sewage is being put into our rivers illegally?
Rebecca Pow
That is yet another measure that has been put in place. There is a requirement now for water companies to report all discharges from storm sewage overflows with dates and deadlines, but some water companies have gone over and above. They already have that in place and some companies, in particular around the coast, are reporting annually.
[Official Report, 12 January 2023, Vol. 725, c. 686.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow).
An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone).
The correct response should have been:
Rebecca Pow
That is yet another measure that has been put in place. There is a requirement now for water companies to report all discharges from storm sewage overflows with dates and deadlines, but some water companies have gone over and above. They already have that in place and some companies, in particular around the coast, are reporting daily.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, and your officers for allowing the time for this very important session; it is appreciated. When we met here in December, I asked the Environment Secretary if she had met water bosses to tackle the Tory sewage scandal that has had turned Britain into an open sewer. We are facing huge water leaks, drought and sewage pumping out across the country, and not a single English river free of pollution. Yet it was not seen as a priority that she clean up her own mess, because as a previous Environment Minister she literally opened the floodgates. Now she has finally met water bosses, can she say what firm commitments have been secured to finally end the Tory sewage scandal?
Rebecca Pow
I have been meeting regularly with water companies, as has the Secretary of State. In fact, we had a joint meeting just last week with the five poorest performing water companies. That was a very feisty meeting, as can be imagined. The water companies are being held to account. We now have the data we need, thanks to the monitoring and the programmes that this Government are putting in place, which were not in place under all those years of the Labour Government. It is no good standing up there and scare-mongering. At the end of last week I met South East Water, and this week it is South West Water.
[Official Report, 12 January 2023, Vol. 725, c. 687.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow).
Errors have been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon).
The correct response should have been:
Rebecca Pow
I have been meeting regularly with water companies, as has the Secretary of State. In fact, we had a joint meeting just last month with the five poorest performing water companies. That was a very feisty meeting, as can be imagined. The water companies are being held to account. We now have the data we need, thanks to the monitoring and the programmes that this Government are putting in place, which were not in place under all those years of the Labour Government. It is no good standing up there and scaremongering. Last month I met South East Water, and this week it is South West Water.
Deposit Return Schemes: Digital Technology
Wera Hobhouse
I am pleased that the Minister recognises the possible advantages of a digital deposit return scheme, which, according to Resource Futures, could reduce the cost of the current scheme by £3.3 billion. We were promised a response to the latest DRS consultation, but it has still not been published. Will the Minister tell us when we can expect a response?
Rebecca Pow
Further details of the deposit return scheme, which will be so important to reducing waste, will be announced and published later this month.
[Official Report, 12 January 2023, Vol. 725, c. 697.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse).
The correct response should have been:
Rebecca Pow
Officials are working towards publication this month of further details of the deposit return scheme, which will be so important to reducing waste.
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Leo Docherty
First, on the proportion of British Council contractors who have been notified and processed, I can confirm—that is a yes—a considerable number of principals have been processed and informed and granted forward processing. Their dependants number almost 300, so, in the round, it is quite a considerable figure.
[Official Report, 11 January 2023, Vol. 725, c. 289WH.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron).
The correct information should have been:
Leo Docherty
First, on the proportion of British Council contractors who have been notified and processed, I can confirm—that is a yes—a considerable number of principals have been processed and informed and granted forward processing. With their dependants, this number is around 300, so, in the round, it is quite a considerable figure.
Leo Docherty
It is clear to me that the constraint—the limiting factor—will be the deplorable security situation. Regrettably, there are crippling and pernicious constraints on the ability of any Afghan to move and travel, and those are outwith our control and ability to influence. The situation is getting worse, not better. Of course, that is the constraint on the numbers able to travel, rather than any procedural, bureaucratic or quota constraint from the British Government.
[Official Report, 11 January 2023, Vol. 725, c. 291WH.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron).
The correct response should have been:
Leo Docherty
It is clear to me that an ongoing constraint is the deplorable security situation. Regrettably, there are crippling and pernicious constraints on the ability of any Afghan to move and travel, and those are outwith our control and ability to influence. The situation is getting worse, not better. Of course, that is the constraint on the numbers able to travel, rather than any procedural or bureaucratic constraint from the British Government.
Mr Baron
The Minister is being generous in giving way again and I appreciate his generosity. When he talks about security, I understand what he is saying; all of us in this Chamber fully appreciate the fact that these people have to be security-checked. However, they have already been identified as legitimate, and at very high risk or high risk. I take on board his point that there has to be a security check, but once these people have gone through that, what I am sure he is saying to the Chamber is that there will be no impediment from a quota point of view to getting them out of the country. Am I right?
Leo Docherty
That is my firm expectation. I reiterate the fact that the constraint will be the highly unpredictable, regrettable and deplorable lack of security, and the actions of a regime entirely at odds with everything these people represent. That will be the constraint. I hope that is clear.
[Official Report, 11 January 2023, Vol. 725, c. 292WH.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron).
The correct response should have been:
Leo Docherty
I reiterate the fact that an ongoing constraint will be the highly unpredictable, regrettable and deplorable lack of security, and the actions of a regime entirely at odds with everything these people represent. That will be a constraint. I hope that is clear.
Petitions
Access to NHS dental care in Blackpool
Planned closure of the Ambleside and Hawkshead doctors surgeries
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 11 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
Commercial Breeding for Laboratories
(1 year, 11 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
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 611810, relating to commercial breeding for laboratories.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The prayer of the petition states:
“Revoke all licences (PEL) for commercial breeders of laboratory animals. Require all Project Licences (PPLs) applications be reviewed by an independent Non Animal Methods (NAMs) specialist committee. Revise s24 ASPA 1986 to allow review. Urge International Regulators to accept & promote NAMs. We believe the use of animals is scientifically, ethically, morally and financially (taxpayer funded) unjustifiable. Defined in 1959, UK law enshrines the principles of the 3Rs. The UK must abandon these old principles and focus on the development and use of Non Animal Methods. Having an independent NAMs specialist committee review applications for Project Licences (PPLs) prior to their approval, so that a licence is only granted if there is no replacement method. Commercial breeders of laboratory animals are profit rather than animal-welfare focused.”
The petition received over 102,000 signatures and counting, including 144 from my own Carshalton and Wallington constituency. I thank the petition creators for taking the time to come and speak to me about why they set up the petition and why they thought it was so important. I also thank everyone who signed the petition and in particular everyone in the Public Gallery.
The inspiration for the petition, while broadly focused on the policy of animal testing, relates to an individual case, which I am sure hon. Members will want to reference, of the ongoing peaceful protest organised by Camp Beagle of a laboratory just outside of Cambridge. Activists have been sitting outside the MBR Acres site in Cambridgeshire for over 18 months. The petition is another way of supporting those trying to raise awareness of commercial breeding and animal testing. The petition creator also took the time to tell me that this is a first step in a campaign to try to change the law so that animals in facilities such as MBR Acres are protected by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, instead of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which they currently fall under. There is a lot of interest in the debate, so I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible so that everyone can have a say. I will set out the current regulations and processes for animal testing in the UK, before talking about the asks of the petition in more detail.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires research establishments to use scientifically satisfactory non-animal methods wherever possible. The premise of my speech is the fact that this requirement is not being properly enforced or regulated. The UK legal framework should ensure accordance with the principles of the three Rs, which stand for replacement, reduction and refinement. Under the law, a licence cannot be granted to a testing laboratory unless the Home Office is satisfied that a non-animal approach could not give the desired scientific answer. Applicants are asked to demonstrate that they have considered non-animal alternatives for the tests they propose to do, but in reality this is treated more like a box-ticking exercise, providing only the most cursory information, such as how opportunities to replace animal testing with non-animal methods were considered. The application is then evaluated by one of a very small number of inspectors—a medical doctor or veterinarian who is not necessarily an expert in that area of testing—and inspectors often have a background in animal testing themselves.
The reality is that applications are very unlikely to be refused. According to some research, no licences were refused for animal experimentation between 2018 and 2021. That is a problem, because analysis of the licences granted during the first half of 2020 showed that researchers often failed to adequately explain their strategy to search for non-animal methods. In one example, only a one-word answer was given on the application. Simply put, the legal framework to uphold the principle of the three Rs is not being effectively enforced. The implications of that cannot be overstated.
I came across a shocking statistic when preparing for this debate. In 2021, over 3 million scientific procedures were conducted on animals. If that figure was not large enough already, it was a 6% increase on the year before. The use of dogs increased by 3%, cats by 6%, horses by 29% and monkeys by 17%. I can only speculate why those increases occurred. Will the Minister share any data collected by the Home Office on the reasons for that increase? It seems counter-productive, because only a small proportion of animal experiments are conducted to satisfy regulatory requirements. In 2021 again, around 21% of experimental procedures fell into that category. That is a really low number.
A recent report from the animals in science regulation unit described deeply troubling animal welfare failings in British laboratories between 2019 and 2021. I am sure colleagues have been sent videos, pictures and links to many of them, especially regarding the MBR Acres site in Cambridgeshire. Those failings include a non-human primate dying after becoming trapped behind a restraint device, boxes of 112 rats being moved in error to a compacter, where they were crushed alive, and numerous incidents of animals being left without food or water.
In my view, the UK cannot claim to have high standards of animal testing welfare when we allow animals to die of starvation, suffocation or asphyxiation—whether they are used for testing or whether they become one of the numbered surplus that get slaughtered every year. To give some numbers on that, in 2017, 1.81 million animals were either bred for laboratory use and discarded as surplus, or killed for their body parts to be used for testing.
On a more positive note, the number of procedures being carried out by commercial organisations has fallen, although the number conducted by medical schools has risen. For example, 60% of procedures were commercial in 1988, compared with just 27% in 2020. However, no information is published about which establishments are primarily engaged in the breeding and creating of genetically altered animals, as opposed to experimental procedures.
The Government stopped publishing detailed information on procedures by establishment type in 2021. That means we do not truly know how many surplus animal deaths there have been. To be clear, that is animals bred only to be killed without any testing. This used to happen under an EU regulation, but since leaving the European Union, the UK is not required to publish statistics on the number of animals that die within the system without having undergone any testing procedures.
Currently, aside from the annual publication of non-technical summaries for projects granted licences for regulated animal research procedures, the Home Office is not obliged to release details of licence applications. Some information is actually prevented from release under section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That lack of transparency is concerning. A Government consultation took place way back in 2014 to consider amending that legislation, but no action has been taken since and the consultation results remain unpublished. Section 24 prevents an open debate and wider scientific scrutiny of the use of animals in research. I hope that the Minister can update us on the Government’s position on the future use of section 24.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for setting out this extremely important issue to the House. Does he agree that it is crucial that the work taken forward should be based on evidence, and that as such we should have a public scientific hearing, as I called for in early-day motion 278, with support from Peter Egan, Ricky Gervais and the Betsy Beagle campaign, For Life On Earth? We must take forward this issue, but it has to be based on science, and we therefore need a scientific hearing to find the evidence base.
Elliot Colburn
I absolutely agree. The prayer of the petition calls for the establishment of a non-animal methods committee to look into this very issue. I hope we will hear some positive remarks on that.
The number of animal laboratory inspectors remains very low, with just 23 full-time equivalents in 2021. This is particularly concerning as the vast majority of non-compliances continue to be self-reported, rather than discovered through a series of inspections. Last year, the chief executive of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals resigned from the animals in science regulation unit, citing concerns about the lack of in-person visits to animal testing sites by inspectors.
With so many procedures taking place—again, there were more than 3 million in 2021—and with so few inspectors and so much self-reporting, it leads one to question whether the picture of animal testing welfare in the UK is actually accurate. Could the Minister provide us with more information on the steps the Government are taking to increase the number of inspectors? Surely, 23 full-time inspectors looking at more than 3 million procedures cannot be enough.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
My hon. Friend presents a worrying situation caused by having so few animal inspectors. The UK used to lead the world in animal testing, banning animal testing for cosmetics some 15 years before the EU. Does he agree that we should use this opportunity to once again make the UK a world leader by banning animal testing and ensuring that the NAMs come forward?
Elliot Colburn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The UK led the way on banning the use of animals for cosmetic testing. Indeed, just in this Parliament, we have passed so much animal welfare legislation. This issue does seem to be a glaring omission that I believe we should look at.
We can debate the merits or otherwise of animal testing in the past, but there is growing evidence and a growing consensus in the scientific community that we are reaching—if we have not already reached—the limit of any research potential of animal testing. There has been a lack of progress in many key areas of health that concern all of us, including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and many other diseases, especially cancer. Animal experimentation is cited as playing a major role in the slow rate of progress, due to the significant biological differences between species, which prevent the translation of findings from animals to humans.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful presentation. On that point, is it not increasingly the case that animal experimentation is just bad science and, worse still, is actually hindering the development of treatments that benefit humankind? On both scores, it is something we should be consigning to the history books.
Elliot Colburn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The evidence demonstrates that animal testing has very little benefit. I think we are in the single figures when we look at the percentage of tests that have gone from being successful in animals to successful in humans. It is a waste of money, and we should therefore increasingly be looking to consign animal testing to the dustbin of history. To give a further example, a 2019 study found that it could not recommend any animal model that could reliably predict the efficacy of potential treatments for Alzheimer’s, which is one of the largest health challenges facing this country.
Finally, I want to talk about what the petition is calling for—a NAMs committee—and expand a little on what NAMs, or non-animal methods, are. Because of technological advancements, NAMs have the power not only to replace animal testing but to improve the robustness of the testing that we do, provide more accurate results and be more cost-effective. They are directly relevant to human patients, so they are much more likely to provide the scientific and medical breakthroughs that we are looking for than animal testing. There is growing evidence that NAMs are able to predict potential harms to patients from new drugs that were not identified by animal tests. For example, a recent study found that Emulate’s liver-on-chips were able to correctly identify 87% of drugs that caused drug-induced liver injury to patients despite passing through animal testing. University of Oxford researchers have developed an animal-free model of stroke by using organ-on-a-chip technology. They were able to replicate the blood-brain barrier and mimic a stroke, which creates new possibilities for testing stroke drugs in human cells.
Without regulatory change, the Government could create a NAMs committee to ensure that the UK legal framework is enforced. An independent NAMs specialist committee could review applications for project licences prior to approval so that a licence is granted only if there truly is no replacement method. If the committee felt that that was not the case, it could refer the application back to the applicant, and those assessing it, with advice on where to find appropriate NAMs to meet the research or testing need. That would help to ensure that, as the 1986 Act stipulates, animal testing licences are granted only if there are no appropriate replacements, and it would promote the wider use, research and development of NAMs. A NAMs committee could be constructed in the same way as the existing, animals in science committee: as an advisory, non-departmental public body that is sponsored by the Home Office. Members would be independent NAMs experts who represent a wide range of expertise.
Those proposals are not something that I or the petition creators have picked out of thin air; they are already being implemented across the world. The most recent development came just in December last year, when US President Biden signed the FDA Modernisation Act 2.0, which will make it easier for researchers to choose non-animal testing methods. I strongly believe that if the US can do it, we can do it too—and make a success of it.
I reiterate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) mentioned, our fantastic record of implementing animal welfare reforms, including the recent Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, the Ivory Act 2018, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increased the maximum penalties for animal cruelty, and so much more. However, this issue is a glaring omission. I hope that the Minister can update the House on what steps her Department is taking to address problems surrounding commercial breeding, what investigations there are into the MBR Acres site, and what consideration she has given to establishing a NAMs committee, so that the UK can finally adopt the three Rs, adhere to the letter of the 1986 Act and move away from animal exploitation in favour of innovation.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob—be on their feet—if they wish to be called. I will not impose a fixed time limit at the moment, but roughly six minutes per speech should see us comfortably home and allow time for the Front-Bench spokespeople and Elliot Colburn to wind up.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on his excellent opening speech.
It might come as a surprise—it certainly did to me—that animal experimentation is on the increase in the UK. As we have heard, according to the Government’s own figures, in 2021 over 3 million scientific procedures were conducted on animals in Great Britain, which is an increase of 6% on 2020. The use of dogs increased by 3%, cats by 6%, horses by 29% and monkeys by 17%. Some 80% of experiments on animals were for research-only purposes. Commercial breeding exists to meet the demands and needs of this industry in animal experimentation; without that demand, commercial breeding would not exist, and there would be no need to have this debate.
I think it is fair to say that when I talk to members of the public about this issue, those who do accept animal research think that we have to have it because it is the only option and it really benefits humans. They therefore support commercial breeding for the same reason. However, I think most of those people are unaware that, when it comes to treatment for humans, there is a growing body of evidence that animal procedures produce poor-quality results, and in some cases can actually hold back progress.
Scientific progress has shown us that many assumptions we held as common sense were wrong; the discovery of DNA and the sequencing of entire genomes has shown the amazing close relatedness between the genetic make-up of different mammals. However, when it comes to how those genes actually function—the internal chemistry of animals—our common-sense assumption that humans are not the same as mice, dogs, monkeys, cats, or any other animals used in scientific research and testing, has proven correct. While supporters of animal experiments will point to the successes of the development of the cancer drug Herceptin and diabetic insulin, there are failures as well, such as TGN1412, where a dose 500 times smaller than the “safe and effective” dose used in animals killed five human subjects, and Vioxx; relying solely on its results when tested on monkeys resulted in the deaths of, and injuries to, nearly 8,000 people.
To be of value, a research method must prove reliably predictive results. Animal methods fail to do that, for a number of reasons. Major differences exist between species, relating to anatomy, organ structure and function, metabolism, chemical absorption, genetics and lifespan. A homogenous group of animals living in a controlled experimental setting cannot predict varied human patients with their individual life histories and wide range of environmental factors. Artificially created diseases in animals in laboratories cannot accurately reflect naturally occurring human illnesses. Common adverse reactions from humans, such as nausea, mental disturbance, dizziness, fatigue, depression, confusion and double vision, cannot be detected in animals.
A number of articles have been published in The BMJ and elsewhere criticising the lack of any systematic review of the efficacy of using animals in biomedical research. In fact, a bias in favour of animal research has been shown to be holding back progress in some areas—we have already heard the example of Alzheimer’s treatments. I fear that millions of pounds and tens of thousands of hours of research may have been wasted on a scientific dead end, but worse than the time and money wasted: a drug that damages animals in early tests and is therefore abandoned could be safe and effective in humans. Valuable drugs that were nearly lost because of their toxicity in animals include the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen and the leukaemia drug Gleevec.
We cannot know how many potential treatments have been overlooked in this way, but thankfully, as we have heard, there are alternatives that focus on human biological processes to investigate disease and potential treatments. Those use human cells, tissues and organs, and existing data and technologies such as organ-on-a-chip technology or artificial intelligence, along with other procedures. They are called the new approach methodologies. By providing results that are directly relevant to human patients, NAMs are much more likely to generate breakthroughs than outdated animal-based techniques.
NAMs and human-relevant research is a fast-growing sector, and one in which the UK has the potential to be right at the forefront of innovation, leading the way. At the University of Oxford, for example, Dr Paul Holloway has developed a new, animal-free model of stroke, as we have just heard. Using organ-on-a-chip technology, he was able to replicate the human blood-brain barrier and mimic stroke, enabling new possibilities to test stroke drugs in human cells. A 2021 report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research predicted that the UK NAM industry could contribute £2.5 billion to UK GDP by 2026, an increase of 700% from 2017. There is so much that the Government could and should be doing to promote that area of technology.
I support three of the proposals from Animal Free Research UK, which has urged Members to speak in this debate: to produce an action plan for encouraging the widespread adoption of human-relevant research techniques; to launch a well-resourced programme of practical support and training to improve awareness and knowledge of human-relevant techniques; and to provide funding to improve the human relevance of research on a scale that reflects the urgency and importance of the issue.
I urge the Minister to take whatever steps she can to move research away from the cruel, wasteful and unhelpful focus on animal experimentation, and towards a future of new technologies and research methods focused on human modelling that are better for us, better for animals and better for our economy.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank the more than 102,000 people who signed the petition. I know there was some anxiety among them that we would not do justice to it today, and I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) for doing it more than justice. There appears to be a degree of consensus in the room, and I hope the Minister does not let us down at the end of the debate but indicates the way forward.
Breeding animals solely for the purpose of animal testing all too often condemns them to a life of suffering, culminating in a painful death. As we have heard, conditions in such breeding facilities have been shown to be unhygienic and cruel, with the animals exhibiting signs of extreme stress and frustration. That is just in the breeding facilities, and we know that the animals then go on to the laboratory, where who knows what they will have to endure. I do not want to repeat the stats and everything my colleagues have said, but I do want to endorse the point that the three Rs are clearly not working as they should, particularly when it comes to replacing animals in testing.
I do not think we will see a “big bang” moment at which animal testing just stops, so I want to focus on the five incremental steps where swift progress is possible. There is really no excuse not to act. First, we know that not all animal experiments are conducted for the purposes of medical research; many animals are still used in the development and testing of products such as food additives and pesticides. At one uni, researchers tested cannabis on, I think, rats to see whether it gave them the munchies—given that they were based at a university, I do not think they really needed to test on animals to come to a conclusion on that! After the ban on using animals for cosmetics testing, and the more recent ban on using them to test household products, will the Minister tell us what is next? Let us keep moving the issue forward.
Secondly, the Government could restrict the types of tests that are licensed. Colleagues of a similar age to me will remember the campaign to outlaw the infamous Draize test, whereby toxic substances were dripped into the eyes, or on to the skin, of healthy rabbits. I have recently had several robust discussions with Bristol University about its use of the forced swim test on mice to induce anxiety, fear and stress—all to collect data of questionable quality. That raises another point, which has come up in some of the figures that have been mentioned: is scientific curiosity a good enough reason to carry out endless tests on animals that do not actually yield results? Surely they should be used only when trying to reach a conclusion, not just out of curiosity.
Thirdly, the Government could build on the success of the primate testing ban by restricting the range of animals that can be tested on. As we have heard, MBR Acres in Cambridgeshire continues to breed 2,000 beagles each year, solely for animal testing. Beagles, as opposed to other dogs, are favoured for this kind of toxicity testing precisely because of their docile, compliant nature. They are either injected or force-fed poisonous chemicals, and they are asphyxiated before an autopsy is conducted to assess the effects on them. Dogs bred for testing have also been forced to inhale pesticides or have been deliberately given heart attacks. We have also heard that cats, horses and monkeys are still being used. I do not think any of my constituents would support the continued testing on beagles, and we could have a quick win on this issue if we outlawed that.
Alexander Stafford
The hon. Lady makes a powerful point, especially on the types of animals being used. It is abhorrent not only that dogs such as beagles and others, and horses, are used but that, as we have heard, they are increasingly being used. Some 3% more dogs, and more than 20% more horses, have been tested on this year. Does the hon. Lady agree that, with the physiology of these animals being so different from that of humans, we should not be increasing the number of dogs and horses that we are testing on? Does she agree that we should ban testing on dogs and horses?
Kerry McCarthy
I entirely agree.
Fourthly, we could reduce the number of licences issued by simply encouraging greater transparency. We have heard about section 24 of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said that from 2018 to 2021, every licence that was applied for was granted, but we need to know the figures; they need to be out in the public domain.
We also need to avoid duplication. I know that commercial interests come into play, but, particularly with the UK leaving REACH—the EU’s chemicals regulatory regime—there is a real danger that we could end up with even more tests having to be carried out when they are already being done elsewhere. I know that campaigners and scientists have called for data sharing, but it is just not happening.
Again, the Government have been very slow to respond. The Environmental Audit Committee did an inquiry into chemicals regulation post Brexit, which was notable mainly because the now Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), suggested that the British version of REACH should be called BREACH, which would not be ideal for a regulator. I hope the Minister can say a little about that.
My fifth and final point relates to what everyone has been saying about the development of NAMs and alternatives. I will not rehearse the arguments that have already been made about effectiveness, but I have certainly spoken about how effective animal testing is, as opposed to the non-animal methods that are being developed. Queen Mary University of London has set up its own unit. When I spoke to scientists who are involved in that, it was clear that there are real experts in the field who support a move away from animal testing and do not think it is effective. I will conclude on that point.
As I said, I am not expecting the Minister to say today that she is going to declare an end to animal testing. We want to see the three Rs—which have been Labour policy for a long time—being properly enforced, and I have suggested some ways in which she could make some progress in that regard.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for leading today’s debate on this important topic, and the 102,230 members of the British public that signed e-petition 611810, including 137 from my constituency of Rutherglen and Hamilton West.
The petition raises a crucial point when we think about animal testing. The breeding of animals specifically for this purpose may not immediately cross our minds. It is interesting and concerning that the Government’s response to the petition did not address this point. The text of the petition itself raises an important consideration about the model used in the UK:
“We believe the use of animals is scientifically, ethically, morally and financially (taxpayer funded) unjustifiable.”
With the use of animal testing so completely out of step with the large majority of public opinion, the financial aspect—the part taxpayer money has to play in funding continued animal experiments—should not be overlooked. The Government need to reconsider their position on this matter.
As an animal lover, laboratory testing of animals is an issue I feel strongly about, as do many of my constituents. That is why I tabled an Adjournment debate on the matter just before Christmas 2021. It is why I am also very disappointed to see a continued lack of nuance in the Government’s stance. At the close of the Home Office’s reply to this petition, it states:
“The Government is clear that the use of animals in science is justified, for the benefits it brings to human, animal and environmental health and safety.”
I am disappointed to be here almost 13 months exactly from my Adjournment debate, in which I covered the unpredictability of animal testing results when replicated in human medicine trials, to have to labour the same points once again. Let me be clear: it is well documented that animal trials cannot reliably predict, or translate to, outcomes for humans. One might think this would be common sense; as a species, we are inherently different to the animals tested on. That has been shown time and again by experts in detailed and peer-reviewed research, and in relation to a huge number of diseases, including—I will give just a small sample—diabetes, cardiovascular disease and HIV. About 100 HIV vaccines have been tested on animals and zero work in humans. In fact, Dr Richard Klausner of the National Cancer Institute said:
“We have cured mice of cancer for decades—and it simply didn’t work in humans.”
Even if we did not care about the suffering of the animals tested on, which I am sure is not the case for almost everyone, how can anyone justify the money and time wasted on seeking out cures and treatments through methods that we know do not work? Even if we take away all the reported issues with the scrutiny given to licence applications and the reliability of results, the key thing I cannot understand is why we are still relying on a legislative framework passed in 1986.
Investment into research and more sophisticated non-animal reliant methods and technologies is overdue. It is not acceptable that in 2021, 161,000 animals were involved in procedures judged “severe” or “non-recovery” in terms of harm caused. It is not acceptable that the Government view that as a necessary evil. It is not necessary, and a solution requires just a little more thinking and work.
I hope the Minister will provide a commitment that the Government will look seriously at this issue, and urgently publish a strategy that will see animal testing phased out and other methods better funded and researched. I hope she will acknowledge that the current framework is not fit for purpose, and that continued state-licensed animal experimentation is a stain on the reputation of the UK, which is at the forefront of animal welfare issues. The UK prides itself on being a leader in the animal welfare space. If we do not adapt and change immediately, we will fall behind our international allies; we already are falling behind.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing this e-petition debate. I also thank the 170 constituents of mine from Coventry North West who signed the e-petition.
Let me be unequivocal: Britain must reclaim its position at the forefront of animal rights protection. For years, this crucial issue has been sidelined. Key legislation, such as the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and the animals abroad Bill have gone missing without a trace. We cannot allow the same to happen with animal testing.
I am proud that our country outlawed the testing of cosmetics on animals in 1997. Although it was long overdue, it was a welcome achievement. However, over the past two decades, technological advances have changed the testing landscape dramatically, so it is time the law caught up. With fewer than 3 million procedures a year, animal testing is at its lowest ever level since 2004, and more humane and non-animal alternatives are used to achieve the same end. Many Members have spoken about the alternatives.
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary pharmacy group, I have no intention to oppose legitimate medical research. However, as the RSPCA said, far too many animals are still being put through experiments that do not constitute vital medical research. Most concerning of all is severe suffering, whereby animals are subjected to the highest level of pain, debility or death in the name of research. Although there has been significant progress in recent years, with a 61% drop in the number of procedures causing severe suffering carried out in the UK since 2014, we need a cast-iron commitment to ending the procedure all together.
The time for action is now. A generation on from the achievements of the 1990s, we need a fundamental and binding review of the entire field of animal testing. Only a root and branch, searching inquiry will protect animals in the short term and prevent their use in testing in the long term, as more and more alternatives are developed. Equally, as we set goals for the future, we cannot neglect the animals that are suffering as we speak, so a review must also commit to examining conditions as they are today, and it should review the situation at Camp Beagle.
Despite the progress that has been made, I am deeply concerned that animal rights are on the verge of a dramatic leap backwards. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill could wipe thousands of vital regulations from our statute book overnight. That means that the ban on testing cosmetics on animals may be brought to a sudden end. More and more of my constituents are concerned about the dangerous pattern they see emerging from the Government’s action on animal welfare. New laws, long promised, are dropped the moment the spotlight moves to the next issue dominating the front pages. Even those that manage to slip through the net and reach the statute book are frequently watered down with enforcement mechanisms that nobody could honestly believe are transparent or effective. All that is taking place against a backdrop of a flurry of vital laws that are due to be jettisoned with no democratic oversight whatever.
Animal research and testing cannot be swept under the rug any longer, so I urge the Government to seek a compassionate and thorough understanding of the science and the consequences for both animals and people alike. Going backwards cannot be an option. As science makes more and more research possible without the need to involve animals, it is our duty in this place to react and ensure that the law keeps up.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford, and to take part in the debate, which is of great concern to many of our constituents. I am here on behalf of the 169 people in and around Canterbury who signed the petition, and of those who contact me regularly about animal welfare issues. I want to declare an interest as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and also as chair of the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group. At a recent meeting, we heard from people who work for animal charities who outlined the trauma, abuse and suffering that some dogs experience in the laboratory settings used in commercial breeding. It is very traumatic to hear those cases and to see the footage gained, often at risk to the people who take it.
At first, “commercial breeding” as a singular term does not sound too controversial. It sounds as though we allow dogs to give birth and animals to be bred in order to save lives, and then give those dogs to a loving family, but, once we have had our eyes opened to the horrific practices that operate up and down the United Kingdom, that cloak of innocence is soon removed. I want to pay tribute to my friend Marc Abraham OBE, who arranges the events for our APPG to bring together professionals from the industry and to allow discussions to be had and strategies to be created. That ensures that debates such as this take place in which Members of Parliament have full knowledge of the issues.
It is important to reiterate that of the 3.1 million procedures conducted in 2021, 1.7 million were experimental procedures—often a codeword for abusive practices—and 1.3 million were cases of genetically altered animals. I acknowledge that there is a difference between trying to prevent life-limiting disease and experiments about whether rats get the munchies, as we have heard before, or about whether hair conditioner makes our hair more shiny, which, thankfully, are against the law now.
The annual statistics provided by the Government allow for analysis of trends. However, I have concerns that the data gathering does not record the type of establishment used—the data previously showed that—and I would be grateful if the Minister could outline whether there are any plans to re-commit to that type of data collection.
The petition calls for a number of amendments to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, a 37-year-old piece of legislation. Since then, we have of course had huge technological advances. I hope the Minister will agree that it is time for a new piece of legislation that not only addresses how state-of-the art equipment is used when genetically engineering animals, but how technology can help issue licensing and monitor the behaviour and operations of commercial breeding with the aim of bringing the cruellest aspect of that practice to an end.
With new technology being created every day, some of the procedures that inflict the most pain and suffering on animals such as beagles can now be simulated artificially through computer modelling, non-invasive scanning methods and cell cultures, to name a few. We have heard about AI as well. Those new opportunities can lead to better animal welfare, which is what the 102,000 members of the public who signed the petition, and many more, demand of us. Let us end the outdated, unpopular and barbaric procedures sooner rather than later and encourage investment in NAMs, which we know are the future of medical research.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
I am here today because three separate constituents have come to my Friday surgery and opened my eyes to how the existing framework in this country is ethically, practically, morally and scientifically bankrupt. I pay tribute to the valiant protesters at Camp Beagle who, for 18 months, have been outside the gates of Marshall Bio Resources in Cambridgeshire—it is happening not too far from here.
I was sent some secretly obtained footage of just a couple of minutes, not highlights culled from several hours, and it was concerning and upsetting to see the barbaric conditions that the beagles are kept in, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) said. Beagles are good-natured animals who will not bite back, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) pointed out. They are bred in factory conditions, with no space to run around. They have never experienced sunshine, wind, rain or any such things—no natural light. I think there were some pictures of them eating faeces, so God knows what diet they are given.
In those beagles’ lifetime, after 16 weeks—they are only babies, puppies—they go to laboratories and who knows what happens. They are injected with bleach, fertiliser and all such things, even at that young age. They are sentient beings, just as we are, and that should not continue. MBR Acres sounds quite nice, as if the beagles are running around, gambolling in the fields, but that is far from the case, and every time what happens to them is put to MBR Acres, it says it is fully compliant with the law and a fully licensed establishment. That law, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury pointed out, is the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986—but 1986 was a different world. Even I was at school at then. How many Prime Ministers have we had since then—okay, we have had three this year alone—and there was not even the internet.
People ask: “What is the alternative?” We heard about NAMs, the non-animal routes we should be going down, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). There is a better way of doing things: cutting-edge technologies, modelling three-dimension cell cultures, organs on chips, artificial intelligence. That all harnesses scientific progress. Why are we still stuck in 1986, when “The Chicken Song” by Spitting Image—“Hold a chicken in the air”—was No. 1? It was a completely different world.
The Cruelty Free International pressure group sets everything out in a detailed plan. We could have a regulator, or even a committee to mirror the Animals in Science Committee, a NAMs committee that could monitor such things. ASPA, the 1986 Act, sets out just bare-minimum guidelines, not even best practice, for the care, transit, housing and killing of research animals. We have two sites in this country: the Marshall Bio or MBR one, and Envigo. If we look across the Atlantic at the USA, one of the Envigo sites in America was closed recently because of gross welfare violations. We were told that when we left the EU, we would level up and have higher standards than anywhere else, but that is very far from the truth and from what seems to be happening.
I am also concerned about how protesters are demonised—as recently as today—even though in this country we have a long tradition of civil disobedience, with the suffragettes, the Levellers, the Diggers and all such things. As a statement of MBR Acres puts it:
“Unfortunately, extremists, including long-time activists, are committing unlawful and dangerous activities each day.”
My constituent, Helen Cheese-Probert, is not what we might call a troublemaker. She is a scientist by training, who came most recently to my surgery on Friday. It is not only her; Ricky Gervais, Will Young and Chris Packham are all on side as well. It is not just the demonisation of protesters that worries me, but the validity of animal experimentation for human conditions. Some figures show that 95% of cases of things done to animals fail to translate to human conditions, so why are we doing it? When our kids are sick, we do not take them to the vet, do we? That stands to reason.
It is time to deploy NAMs technology to its fullest extent and to consign commercial breeding for animal experimentation—it just sounds horrible—to the history books, to the scrapheap or dustbin of the past. When people my age were kids we used to see videos of monkeys being forced to smoke cigarettes, but now we think that is totally barbaric and wrong.
I will end by saying that, as Gandhi put it, the greatness of a nation can be judged by the way it treats its animals. There is a lot of room for improvement and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about fixing this outmoded picture.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I thank all Members for being incredibly disciplined, as it has made my job very easy. I call Patricia Gibson.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Efford, and I am delighted once again to lead for my party in this debate on calls to ban commercial breeding for laboratories and to implement reform to approve non-animal methodologies. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for opening it so comprehensively.
Like many of my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, I am one of the majority of people who believe that we need to act on what is widely accepted as the unethical, cruel, immoral, counter-productive and damaging use of animals in experiments, as has been explained by Members from across the Chamber. We have, of course, debated the subject before, most recently, I think, in October 2021. We have debated it many times, but it keeps coming back to us via the Petitions Committee, because it simply will not go away. The huge number of people who repeatedly sign petitions about the matter ensures that it will keep coming back for debate unless and until common sense prevails—until science prevails, as inevitably it must. However, we need that to happen as soon as possible for a whole range of reasons, many of which we have heard about today.
Before I go any further, I must thank all the organisations that have provided such excellent briefings for today’s debate, such as the Betsy, Beagle Ambassador For Life On Earth campaign; the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, or FRAME; the RSPCA; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA; and a whole range of other organisations that have campaigned on this issue for decades.
Animal experiments fail in the search for human treatment and cures. Penicillin stayed on the shelf for over a decade because the tests done on rabbits by that great Scot, Alexander Fleming, led him to believe that it would be ineffective in humans. There is a mountain of evidence to show that failure and that is why we need a rigorous public scientific hearing to demonstrate it. Anyone who wishes to argue the opposite, without any confidence or credibility, should relish the opportunity to demonstrate their views in the forum of a public scientific hearing.
We know that some Members of this House and some on the Government Benches would argue in support of the status quo, yet in the repeated debates that we have on the issue they never seem to turn out to defend that position, except for the Minister, of course, who has little choice in the matter. We have MPs in this House who believe that the current situation is the correct one. If that is genuinely a held view, it should be able to be defended. If it cannot be defended, these things ought not to be happening.
While we wait and push for change, the opportunities for the treatment of and search for cures of terrible diseases such as cancer are, according to the USA’s National Cancer Institute, being lost, because studies in rodents have been believed. Far from assisting and advancing the treatment of and cures for terrible human diseases, which is what we all want to see, the use of animals in experiments is actively frustrating that end.
The problem with the petition calling for the NAMs specialist committee is that the fear is that it would be able to act in only an advisory capacity, whereas a public scientific hearing would require animal researchers to prove their claims about the efficacy of the use of animals in animal testing. A rigorous scientific hearing would show that the arguments being made for animal testing simply do not hold up to scrutiny.
Reducing licences and the range of animals on which tests can be carried out is all very well and good, and they are important steps, but we need to be much more stringent. The best way forward—the only way forward—is a robust public scientific hearing to secure the overhaul of the industry that so many of us want to see. Of course, such an overhaul is challenging, because we know that interests have grown up around it that, which defend it even in the face of evidence that it is not really the best way forward. It is certainly not the best way forward for treating diseases or, indeed, for animals.
It is widely reported by experts that 90% of new medicines fail to pass human trials because animals cannot predict human responses. The former editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal has indicated that it is almost impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk in human subjects and, if that continues to be the case, endorsement and funding of pre-clinical animal research seems, at the very least, misplaced. That chimes with the conclusions of Dr Richard Klausner, director of the National Cancer Institute, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), that we have cured mice of cancer for decades, but it simply does not work in humans. In the world of science and in the pharmaceutical industry it is openly acknowledged that animal models on drug development simply do not work.
We should have cause for optimism, however, because on 4 January the Prime Minister delivered a speech. In that speech, he set out his priorities for 2023 and declared that he wants to
“make this country a beacon of science”.
The UK of course comprises four nations, so I will generously assume that he meant to say “the UK” and not “this country”. Putting that aside, I look forward to his Government making good on that commitment, following the science on the issue, taking note of and acting on the significant body of science that tells us that animal experiments are not helpful and, worse, can even be obstructive as we seek to treat and cure a whole range of human diseases.
It is worth recalling the remarks of Dr Lindsay Marshall, the UK’s biomedical science adviser for the Humane Society International, who said:
“The UK cannot expect to have world-leading science innovation whilst we rely on failing animal-based research methods that are rooted in the past.”
She said that,
“animal models are really bad at telling us what will happen in a human body”
and are sometimes “dangerously misleading”. That is despite the UK Government response to the petition indicating:
“The UK’s strengths in research and innovation put it at the forefront of global science. The Government is committed to supporting this science base”.
If we are following the science, there should not be a problem after we have a robust scientific public hearing.
There was much excitement among campaigners recently when President Biden signed into law the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act 2.0, which removed the mandatory requirement that US-based animal tests are used in human drug development. That is a hugely significant step forwards, but animal data can still be used if those who are developing drugs choose to use them. There is no way round the fact that a public scientific hearing would be enormously helpful and useful as a global reference point for drug development.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act’s three Rs— replacement, reduction and refinement—established in 1959 for humane experimental techniques on animals, are a concept developed decades ago to benefit individual experimental design, not to address the need to understand and develop treatments for many human diseases. The three Rs policy, as we have heard from hon. Members, is not fit for the purpose of advancing scientific progress through a shift to innovation without using animals.
A significant body of scientific thought believes there is urgent and pressing need to modernise UK research to keep pace with advancements. Far from the Prime Minister talking about being a world leader, we need to modernise for that to be the case. That requires redirecting resources from unreliable experiments on animals and shifting to a focus more fully on superior, non-animal methods that will benefit humans, animals and the world of science. Otherwise, both animals and patients who are waiting for treatments for terrible diseases will continue to be failed by outdated methods. Could anybody argue that this picture is compatible with the Prime Minister’s vision of the UK becoming a “beacon of science”?
This Government have accepted that animals are sentient beings, and that principle is enshrined in law. However, it is a source of deep frustration, disappointment, concern and even anger that that recognition of sentience does not appear to extend to animals in laboratories, which are subject to painful, cruel and distressing procedures that are not necessary, and following which the vast majority are killed. The recognition of sentience must be extended to all animals through the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, so they can be protected by the unnecessary suffering clause.
We are often told that the experiments to which animals are subjected are not crucial to the development of any new human medicines. On the contrary, those experiments are failing the search for human treatments and cures, as is shown by unequivocal evidence and is widely reported in the peer-reviewed medical literature. We have heard today that the regulatory requirement that animals be used in tests before proceeding to human trials was first established in 1946 in the Nuremberg code. Since then, science has advanced by 77 years, so why are we still using outdated laws to govern human medical research practice? Where else has that happened—that there has been no change in 77 years? It is nonsensical and indefensible.
Our EU partners are moving away from animal experiments. We need a rigorous, public, scientific and transparent hearing, so that we can have a full scientific debate on the reasons for banning animal experiments, where those who disagree can present their evidence for doing so in a transparent and public forum. As I keep asking, why would those who defend the current position shy away from that level of transparency? If those of us who wish to see an end to animal experiments are correct in our views and beliefs and in the evidence that is presented, that will accelerate the arrival of human treatments and cures, while also freeing animals from the cruel and unnecessary fate that awaits them in laboratories.
I hope that when the Minister gets to her feet, she will have taken full cognisance of the very powerful and reasoned arguments made across the Chamber today, and will respond by telling us how her Government have every intention of moving away from the use of animal experiments, as our EU neighbours are doing. I hope that she and her Government will mandate a rigorous public scientific hearing on this matter, which will show transparently and beyond doubt that lab animal models are not capable of predicting the response of human patients, as well as the need to ensure that all creatures are recognised as sentient beings in the Animal Welfare and Animal Welfare (Sentience) Acts. That is what the vast majority of the population across the UK wants to happen, and it is long past time that this Government acted.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who made a compelling case for putting science first that should guide us all today. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for what I thought was an excellent speech, setting out the petition and its aims and the context in which we are having this debate; I also thank the 102,000 people who signed the petition, as other Members have, including the 128 in Croydon Central who did so. As a shadow Home Office Minister, I deal with immigration, police and security. Those issues dominate a lot of our time in this place, and it is good that members of the public push us to talk more about animals and animal welfare, because otherwise, I suspect we would not talk about them nearly often enough.
The e-petition we have debated calls on the Government to ban commercial breeding for laboratories, an issue that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington set out in some detail. As the Labour Front Bencher in this debate, I want to be clear that the Labour party believes that the unnecessary and prolonged suffering of defenceless animals has absolutely no place in a civilised society. That is part of the DNA of our party, and the history of our party is tied to the defence and protection of animal rights.
It is nearly 20 years since the Hunting Act 2004, when the Labour Government ended the cruel practice of hunting with dogs—a clear testament to the progress made since the days of bear-baiting, cockfighting and other awful things. The year 2006 saw the Animal Welfare Act, another landmark piece of legislation that put down serious protections in law for pets, livestock and wild animals alike. We introduced the offence of unnecessary suffering, mutilation and animal fighting, and we promised to end the testing of cosmetics on animals in our manifesto back in 1997.
The last Labour Government were, I like to think, the most animal-friendly this country has seen, and working from the foundations laid by our predecessors, that is what we would hope to be again if we were to get back into Government. This country should lead the world with high animal welfare standards. No animal should suffer unnecessary pain and degradation. It is not a binary decision to be for animal welfare or human welfare; they can and should exist alongside each other. Many hon. Members have set that out very clearly in the debate today.
It is welcome that animal testing practices have improved over many years and advanced over recent years, but as we have heard today we are seeing an increase in testing on some animals. I am concerned about the lack of transparency on animal testing project licence applications as well as the continued permissibility of “severe suffering” as defined in UK law. We heard that in 2021 there were over 3 million procedures involving living animals. Of those, around 1.7 million were experimental procedures on living animals, and the remaining 1.3 million were cases of the breeding and creation of genetically-altered animals. Over 160,000 animals were involved in procedures judged as “severe” or “non-recovery” in terms of harms caused. Some still argue that research on animals is a necessary evil and a key tool for scientific process, but as times, science and views all change, so too must our behaviour.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which we have heard much about, is now considered way out of date for modern animal welfare standards and is not properly enforced. We have talked a lot about the 3Rs, and I will not go into more about that now. The development of alternative methods using human cells, AI and modelling techniques was set out very eloquently by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) earlier in the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who had five very clear action points about the lack of necessity for experiments because of scientific curiosity. We heard much about the alternatives, which are very clear and in many cases much more effective than research on animals.
As the official Opposition and probably with support more widely across the House, we ask the Government to institute a comprehensive review of animal testing with a view to improving practice, limiting animal suffering and increasing transparency, as well as having a long-term objective of phasing out animal testing entirely. The Government must invest more in non-animal technologies as an alternative to animal testing. There are some very sophisticated technologies, as we have heard, which are becoming more sophisticated by the year. They are clearly the future.
The petition refers to licensing. It would be helpful to see greater transparency in the issuing of licences so that the public can see when and why animal testing takes place. According to the 1986 Act, wherever possible a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy not entailing the use of protected animals must be used. It is a requirement for those seeking a licence to demonstrate that they considered non-animal alternatives. I wonder if the Minister could clarify how that self-certification is then evaluated and whether licensing applications are assessed by a non-animal methods expert. It is important to understand the scientific rationale behind an application, to understand the procedures and to know that they will have the minimum possible impact on the animal in question. Will the Minister outline the steps that the Government will take to review the system and make it more transparent, and look at licensing applications in the round?
In 2016, Ipsos MORI found that 74% of people believed that more work is needed to find more non-animal alternatives. I am not quite sure why it was only 74%; I suspect it is now much higher. This is clearly a matter of great interest to the public, and this place should respond to what the public are demanding of us in this petition. Many other petitions on animal welfare issues receive hundreds of thousands of signatures each year. We can work harder. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and her all-party group on their work—lots of good work is done across this place—but, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, there are people in this place who think the status quo is acceptable. What is their argument, what have they got to say and where are they today?
In our opinion, the Government have been dragging their heels on animal issues for years. I would like the Minister to indicate when they will announce a review to identify and eliminate at least avoidable testing, and in the long term testing in its entirety. Will the Government commit to eliminating every unnecessary test? Will the Minister clarify whether the Government are committed to upholding firm standards on animal welfare? We have heard some horrible stories. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) talked about the animal welfare side of things—I have not even touched on that—which is of course incredibly important.
I would be grateful if the Minister can set out where the Government’s views on higher and higher restrictions on animal testing sit in relation to the trade deals currently being negotiated and the post-Brexit world that we live in. We should remain firm in our commitments. We do not want to become more reliant on ingredients and chemicals that have been tested on animals abroad. The offshoring of animal cruelty and poor standards is unacceptable. It would be good to hear from the Minister about that.
Finally, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), answered a written parliamentary question just a couple of weeks ago and said:
“The Home Office assures appropriate protection of the use of animals in science through licensing and compliance assurance under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This legal framework, implemented by the Home Office Regulator, requires that animals are only ever used in science where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used is the minimum needed to achieve the scientific benefit, and where the potential harm to animals is limited”—
and that was pretty much a full stop. There was no “We can go further,” “There are things we can do,” or “We can improve.” No inch was given on the status quo. I echo the view across the House that we can do better and go faster. Will the Government commit to that today?
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Minister, there is plenty of time for you to respond, but I would be grateful if you can leave a couple of minutes for Mr Colburn to sum up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
It is a pleasure to appear under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing today’s debate, and I thank all other colleagues for their valuable interventions and contributions.
The Government recognise that this is a policy issue of huge importance and high public interest. It is therefore right and proper that there is scrutiny of the matters that we have discussed today. In opening, I would like to clarify the Government’s position on the use of animals in science and make some overall comments on progress in this area.
We all benefit from the use of animals in science. That can be through improved knowledge of how tissues and organs work to help find new treatments for disease and illness; the development and safety testing of medicines before they are trialled and then used in humans; the safety testing of chemicals to protect workers and the environment; veterinary research and medicines to support animal health; and the protection of the natural environment and the preservation of species. When we need medical care, we benefit from medicines and medical technologies that are possible due to knowledge gained from the use of animals in research. We trust those medicines are safe to use because of the rigorous testing requirements, including at times the use of animals.
Emma Hardy
There seem to be an awful lot of presumptions in the opening of the Minister’s speech, including presumption that we all benefit from testing on animals, despite the evidence that many Members have provided. I gave two examples, including a case where animals were used for testing, but when a dose 500 times lower was used on humans, it killed five. I ask the Minister to re-evaluate the assumption that humans always benefit from the testing of products on animals.
Miss Dines
With the greatest respect, the Government are not saying that humans always benefit from animal testing. It is in the nature of testing that it has to be rigorous. Sometimes what is being tested works, and sometimes it does not, but testing can take place only if it is necessary. No one wants unnecessary harm to animals, which is why the Government have the aim of replacing live animals in scientific research and testing with non-animal alternatives wherever possible. Perhaps we can all agree that that is the aim.
Miss Dines
I will make some progress first. Our approach has two fronts. First, robust regulation will ensure that animals are not used where a non-animal alternative could deliver the benefit sought, and secondly, our strategic aim is to facilitate and promote alternatives to animals in scientific research and testing. I therefore believe that we have a shared aim of fully replacing live animals as soon as possible, where that is safe and scientifically possible.
A number of Departments have a stake in the use of animals in science, including: the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which leads on science, research and innovation, including alternatives to the use of animals; the Department of Health and Social Care, which is responsible for the regulation of medicines; and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is responsible for chemical safety and veterinary medicine regulations. The Home Office does not require or commission the use of animals in science. Instead, we regulate to ensure that all proposals for work are authorised only where there is justified benefit, that animals are used only where there is no alternative, that the minimum number of animals is used, that harm is minimised, and that the animals are appropriately cared for. I reject the narrative suggesting that that is not the case. My colleague Lord Sharpe has ministerial responsibility for this work.
By way of background, the debate on animals in scientific research has at its centre three critical strategic imperatives: first, the delivery of the benefits of the use of animals in scientific research; secondly, the delivery of a rigorous and robust regulatory system; and thirdly, the development of alternatives to the use of live animals in procedures. Taken together, these imperatives drive the Government’s policy on the use of animals in science. I will focus my comments on the issues raised by Members in this interesting debate.
Miss Dines
I will make a little more progress, and then I will, of course, come back. The issues raised include the use of animals in science and its regulation, the commercial breeding of laboratory animals, and the development, promotion and acceptance of non-animal methodologies. To be clear, as was said, the UK has never set out to use animals in science. Instead, we have set out to deliver public safety, world-class health innovations and breakthroughs, and to make life-changing discoveries, from new vaccines and medicines to transplant procedures, anaesthetics and blood transfusions. Indeed, the development of the covid-19 vaccine was possible because of the use of animals in research. The use of animals in science must always be considered in the broader context. Animal research and testing is only ever a small part of a wider programme.
Miss Dines
I really must make progress.
In all these instances, the drive has never been to use animals, but to deliver benefits through the justified use of animals. There is significant public concern around the ethical and moral case for the use of animals in science. Animals are expensive to use and difficult to work with, and their use carries a burden of regulation. Animal experimentation is something that people, including this Government, do not like. It is therefore not a matter of choosing to use animals, but of using the best method for the scientific experiment, and ensuring that animals are not used when other methods can give the information needed.
Although much research can be done with non-animal models, there are still purposes for which it is unfortunately essential to use live animals. In many instances, that is because the complexity of whole biological systems cannot be replicated simply using validated non-animal methodologies. However, the Government are committed to looking at alternatives, especially where the safety of humans and animals needs to be ensured—a point that is central to some of the concerns we have heard today. The data from animal testing and research has an important function in the human drug development process, which primarily concerns the safety of new medicines. The use of animals is required by international regulators to assess any adverse effects before clinical trials. Such testing is crucial to protect the safety of participants and the public. If we were to remove the requirement for animal testing, many potential medicines would not progress on to the market, and the risk to humans in clinical trials would be considerably higher.
Under the UK’s regulation pertaining to the use of chemical substances—the REACH regulations, mentioned by Members—industry participants must understand the hazards and risks of the chemicals that they manufacture, place on the market and use. That is to protect human health and the environment from the effects of harmful chemicals. For some chemical hazards, there is no immediate prospect of developing a non-animal alternative test method that could be used as the standard test method across the full range of chemicals. These hazards include reproductive toxicity and bioaccumulation up the food chain in the environment. REACH contains the “last resort” principle for vertebrate animals. That means that an animal study can be carried out only once all other ways of assessing the chemical’s hazard have been exhausted.
The Government are clear that when animals are used in science, they must be protected. The use of animals in science is therefore highly regulated. A licence is required for every establishment, project and individual involved in performing regulated procedures with animals. All establishments are required to have dedicated individuals, including veterinary surgeons, with legal responsibility for the care and welfare of animals, and an ethical review body. Establishments are required to comply with published standards for the care and accommodation of all animals bred, supplied or used for scientific purposes.
Miss Dines
I apologise to hon. Members for not allowing interventions, but I want to leave time to respond directly to comments made.
We continue to develop our approach to regulation, so that we can continually improve compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. We are modernising our approach to ensure that all establishments deliver stronger internal governance systems and processes.
If we are to achieve the benefits of the carefully regulated use of animals in science, there must be a supply of animals bred specifically for that purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington said. Establishments that breed or supply animals for use in science contribute to activities that are critical to protecting human health and to making advances in science. Moreover, they are operating within a regulatory framework, set out under the 1986 Act, which requires an establishment licence and assessment of their compliance with regulation. In the UK, under the Act, establishments that breed animals for use in science are also required to provide care and accommodation to those animals in line with the published code of practice. Adherence to the code of practice and the requirements of the Act are assessed by the regulator as part of its compliance assurance programme.
I recognise the strength of feeling shown today on the subject of breeding animals, particularly dogs. It elicits an emotional response, and I understand that. However, I must be very clear that while we fully uphold people’s right to peaceful protest within the law, recent events at the dog-breeding site that was mentioned have gone beyond peaceful protest, leading to criminal investigations and sanctions. The tactics of protestors have included intimidation, direct action against staff doing their job, and the criminal theft of animals from the site. I confirm that sites are regulated and regularly inspected, so we can assure ourselves that such companies are conducting their work in a manner that complies with the law. It is important that we agree that individuals doing legal business, under an Act of Parliament made in this place, should have the freedom to continue to do that without threat.
The call for a ban on commercial breeders appears mainly focused on the breeding of dogs. It is important to recognise that under the Act no dogs can be authorised for use if the scientific objective can be achieved without using those animals or by using animals of less sentience. The majority of dogs used in science are required for safety testing potential new medicines, in line with international requirements designed to protect human health. Research using dogs has been a step in the development of more than 95% of all chemical medicines approved in the European Union in the last 20 years, including medications for use in treatments for cancer, heart disease, diabetes and specific genetic disorders.
Banning commercial breeding of dogs for scientific purposes could prevent potential new medicines from being tested in Great Britain. If that happened, safety testing work to assure public protection would no doubt have to be offshored to other countries. We cannot guarantee that such testing, or the treatment of animals there, would be carried out to the standard that we expect in the UK. Moreover, having exported that work, we may then be importing it back by means of new medicines. Seeking to close commercial breeders is not the answer. We must continue to address the issue on other fronts.
In supporting and accelerating advances in biomedical science and technologies, the Government are led by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. We seek to reduce the reliance on research and work that involves the use of animals, and to avoid some of the scientific limitations mentioned by hon. Members. Such advances include stem cell research, cell culture systems that mimic the function of human organs, imaging and new computer modelling techniques.
The UK has a world-leading reputation for the delivery of the 3Rs, which are the replacement, reduction and refinement of the use of animals in science. Our framework is replicated internationally. We lead the way in various areas, and I do not accept the characterisation of the framework as defunct, old fashioned or out of date; we are leading on this work. The national centre received core funding of multiple millions of pounds, and the Government are committed to investing appropriately in that centre.
Since it was established, the centre has invested £77 million in research and £27 million in contracts, and it has recently published its new strategy to increase the focus on animal replacement technologies; it also champions high standards in animal research. We are seeking proper funding to move away from the use of animals. The UK contributes significantly to the development and embedding of non-animal methods in chemical testing internationally, for both human and environmental safety, through participation in a number of collaborative research and development programmes. That includes both leading on and supporting projects undertaken with the OECD to introduce internationally harmonised tools and guidance for new approaches.
I will mention briefly the points made so eloquently by the Members who spoke. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) that we must grip the new opportunities to move away from animal use, if we can. We are spending money, and we seek to move forward. To the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), I point out that we regularly commission independent work; the Animals in Science Committee gives valued advice on the development of policy. I can confirm that we have commissioned advice on the rabbit forced swim testing that was mentioned. She may want to look further at that important work for more information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned that the statistics in this area are not as informative as they should be. We have the most comprehensive system in Europe for the publication of statistics, via the Office for National Statistics. For example, we know that in 2021, the use of dogs decreased by 3%; last year it decreased by 7%. Over the past 10 years, advances have been made. Inspections were mentioned; there are regular inspections. The regulator publishes the number of inspections in its annual report, and we are running a modernisation programme focused on improving those inspections.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned, with eloquence, her desire for improvements in this area. I agree that we are a nation of animal lovers. We believe in high welfare standards. As a nation, we believe in public safety, environmental safety and the protection of animals where possible. That is why the Government’s approach focuses on alternatives that get us away from using animals. Animals will be used only when absolutely necessary. There were many other very useful contributions, which I value and have considered. It would be unfair if I took up all the time, but if there are any specific issues that I have not addressed, I would welcome any letters, to which I will respond when there is more time.
Elliot Colburn
I thank the petitioners who brought us here today, and thank colleagues for their contributions. I gently say to the Government that this is an issue that the Petitions Committee has to keep bringing back, because petitioners feel so strongly about it that they keep asking us to debate it again. It will not go away.
It is nearly 40 years since the regulatory framework was set out in the 1986 Act. While there were admirable ambitions in the Act for reducing animal testing and refinement, the fact that animal testing went up between 2020 and 2021 demonstrates that those ambitions are not being met. Technological advances have since overtaken events. There is inevitability here; we will have to move on this anyway. The USA did in December, and other countries are going in that direction already. International regulatory frameworks are already looking to revise guidance. The assumption that the 3Rs are being met, or that the undertakings on the search for alternative methods are being met, is demonstrably untrue, given the evidence collected by the third sector. The Government are sitting on a piece of work from 2014. I repeat my request for an update from the Home Office on what happened to that piece of work.
Ending animal testing is not just a nice thing to do; animal testing is demonstrably bad for animals, produces bad results and is bad for the economy. There is benefit to humans in massively increasing the amount of research and development we do through non-animal methods. I urge the Government to go away and look at the matter again, update the House on the 2014 consultation results, set up the committee, and move towards the ambition of reducing, and finally eliminating, the use of animals in testing.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered E-petition 611810, relating to commercial breeding for laboratories.
Written Statements
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Reform of the Clandestine Entrant Civil Penalty Scheme
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
This Government are determined to crack down on illegal migration, to dismantle the organised criminal gangs behind it and to keep our borders safe and secure.
For over 20 years, we have run a scheme to help us to do just this, the clandestine entrant civil penalty scheme. The scheme is designed to complement law enforcement activity against criminals. It does this through tackling negligence by people who are not criminals but whose carelessness nonetheless means that they are responsible for a clandestine entrant gaining access to a vehicle.
During the financial year 2020-21, there were 3,145 incidents where clandestine entrants were detected concealed in vehicles, despite the covid-19 pandemic causing a lower volume of traffic. This rose to 3,838 incidents during the financial year 2021-22.
The Government are therefore concerned that the scheme is not having enough of an effect. Existing penalty levels have not changed since 2002. Drivers and other responsible persons are not taking the steps required to secure their vehicles, and clandestine entrants are continuing to use these routes to come to the UK.
The Government committed to reform the scheme in 2021, running a consultation in the summer of 2022. We are today publishing our response to that consultation, setting out plans to deliver what will be the first overhaul of the scheme since 2002.
Our reforms, including new penalty levels, have been designed to strike a better balance between disincentivising negligence and failures to comply with vehicle security standards, while ensuring that the regime is not overly burdensome on industry.
We will now be commencing relevant parts of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and further commencing relevant parts of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. We are also laying a statutory instrument to set out new security standards for all vehicles and to establish new maximum penalty levels. We are laying a new statutory code of practice to set out the circumstances in which a person might be eligible for a reduction in the level of their penalty. We are in addition publishing an economic note and an equality impact assessment.
It is our intention, subject to the will of Parliament, for these reforms to take effect on Monday 13 February 2023. Between now and then, we will deliver a four-week period of engagement with drivers and industry, to make sure they know about the changes that are coming and to support compliance.
The Government are committed to working with individuals and companies to support growth while delivering a strong and effective border. These reforms will help us to do just that.
A copy of the consultation response and the economic note will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
We are publishing further information at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/clandestine-entrant-civil-penalty-scheme
[HCWS497]
Green Freeports in Scotland
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
On 13 January, the UK and Scottish Governments jointly announced that the Firth of Forth, and Inverness and Cromarty Firth have been successful in their bids to establish two new green freeports.
Green freeport status will support the creation of over 75,000 new, high-skilled jobs, drive growth and level up areas that have been previously overlooked. These areas will be backed by up to £52 million in UK Government 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.
Inverness and Cromarty Firth, and the Firth of Forth are excellent locations for these new green freeports, ensuring the benefits are felt right across Scotland. I wish to share my congratulations with the successful locations. Their strong bids demonstrated how they will regenerate their local communities, deliver decarbonisation, establish hubs for global trade and pioneer industries of the future.
Freeports are at the vanguard of levelling up: driving growth, creating jobs and, in turn, transforming the communities that surround them. Green freeports in Scotland will build on the UK Government’s successful freeport programme in England, where all eight freeports are open for business, with sites in Plymouth and South Devon, Solent, Teesside, Liverpool and the east of England recently being granted final Government approval. Green freeports are a tangible example of what can be achieved and delivered when Scotland's two Governments work together.
This Government remain committed to ensuring that the whole of the UK can reap the benefits of our freeports programme. We will be making a freeports announcement relating to Wales shortly and we continue discussions with stakeholders in Northern Ireland about how best to deliver the benefits associated with freeports there.
[HCWS498]