Westminster Hall

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 18 January 2023

[Mrs Sheryll Murray in the Chair]

Future of the Parole Board

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the Parole Board.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I come to this debate on the future of the Parole Board not as an expert in jurisprudence, or the theology of jurisprudence, but from my experience as a constituency MP and a member of the Science and Technology Committee. That Committee looks at, among other areas, how public bodies and Government Departments use evidence when coming to decisions. On 7 September 2022, the Science and Technology Committee had a really interesting session looking at the basis that the Parole Board had for making what are very difficult decisions, in many cases, about who to release on parole. I advise any interested person to read the transcript of that session.

Unusually, I want to start by thanking the Secretary of State for Justice. At the last Justice questions, I brought up the case of Andrew Longmire, also known as Andrew Barlow and previously, I think, as Andrew Seamark, a man who was given many life sentences, the last one in 2017, for rape. I asked the Secretary of State whether he would look into the matter, and he released a statement yesterday saying that he was asking the Parole Board for a reconsideration of that case. I am grateful to him for doing that. I am sure that the victims and the families of victims of Andrew Barlow who have contacted me are also grateful.

I would like to thank Neal Keeling, the Manchester Evening News journalist, who has written a number of stories about this case in that paper. Without those stories, I would not have known that Andrew Barlow was likely to be released, and neither would the families of victims and the victims themselves. I have had a large number of harrowing emails from people describing how their families and personal lives have been destroyed by this man and the multiple rapes he carried out over a period of time.

One of the issues in this case, which I obviously will not go into a great deal of detail about, is that Andrew Barlow was given his first life sentences over 30 years ago, and the progress on DNA analysis meant that the police went back on cold cases and found that he had committed two further rapes, so he was given two further life sentences. Amazingly, he said that he did not remember them. That factor should be taken into account in any Parole Board hearing. If the Parole Board wants to know whether people are remorseful and have changed their view, that is an indication of callousness. As many of the victims and their families who have written to me say, the man is a threat to them and to their families and should remain behind bars. I hope that the reconsideration leads to that.

Let me look at how the Parole Board operates and the decision taken by the Government immediately to change some of the process and carry out a full review, which was stimulated by the John Worboys case. There was a public outcry that he was going to be released. That case made many people think that there was something fundamentally wrong with the way the Parole Board was working. Following judicial review, the Court came to the view that

“the Parole Board didn’t do its job properly.”

That is an understatement of what happened. The Parole Board did not look at all the evidence and it did not look at the court decision properly when deciding that Worboys was going to be released. He was a category A prisoner, which means the Secretary of State thought he was a threat to society, but the decision was taken that he could apply for parole.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate, and I rise to speak as co-chair of the board of the Justice Unions parliamentary group. In raising the John Worboys case, does he share my concern that particular emphasis was placed on advice from a psychologist and that advice from probation officers no longer includes recommendations? Although their advice is received, the issue of probation officer recommendations is a particular concern for the union Napo. Perhaps the Government should revisit the decision not to receive specific recommendations from probation officers.

[Graham Stringer]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. I know the trade union believes that recommendations should be made. I have read a lot of the arguments both ways—from the trade union and from the Government, as well as from many of the professional advisers. The case against what the right hon. Lady says is that when there is a recommendation, there is a temptation, for any human being, not to look at the evidence directly. The Parole Board should make its decision based on the evidence before it and its consideration of that evidence, rather than a recommendation. I also see the other side—what people who know the prisoner think, and considering what the probation officers think and recommend, which is important. It is a moot point, but I would not criticise the decision completely to take out recommendations.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I agree that there is a debate to be had on the effect of that. Specifically, I hope the Minister will respond with respect to impact assessments following the change in procedure and the removal of recommendations from probation officers, particularly regarding black, Asian and minority ethnic prisoners and IPP—imprisonment for public protection—prisoners.

[Graham Stringer]

I ask the Minister to respond to that. Let me make a further point about the right hon. Lady’s intervention. The Science and Technology Committee was told in evidence—I think by Professor Shute; I hope I have that right—that when recommendations were made, it was rare to the point of being zero that the Parole Board went against the recommendation. That might or might not indicate that the Parole Board was not reading the evidence as it had been presented to the board. It is easy just to take the recommendations.

Let me turn to third parole case that, as a constituency MP, I spent a lot of time on a few years ago. Thirty years ago today, Suzanne Capper had a funeral and was buried after having been tortured for a week and murdered. I was not an MP 30 years ago, but it was in my constituency. She attended the school that I had attended many years before. It was a horrific case. Four people were convicted of her murder; three have been released, and one is up for parole. In the 1960s, the four people found guilty would have been hanged. I am against capital punishment, but I want the public to have confidence in the justice system. They were guilty of a crime every bit as horrific as the moors murders—Brady and Hindley were never released. Even though three of them have been released since I made representations to the Parole Board on behalf of Suzanne Capper’s mother, which were effectively ignored, I believe that one of the murderers should not be released.

When people learn that three of the murderers, and potentially a fourth, will be walking the streets of this country after that terrible murder, they will not think that justice has been done. I would like an assessment not just of how the Parole Board operates but of who is considered for parole. I do not think those murderers should have been. Although one cannot just use the general view that they should not be, I think there is a sense, when people such as that are walking the streets of this country, that justice has been undermined and has not been done.

Those three cases have brought me, as a constituency MP and as somebody who has been watching what has happened to the Parole Board, to consider that the Parole Board should be reformed in many ways. When the Science and Technology Committee took evidence, virtually all the witnesses said that the Parole Board previously operated in private—in secret. Sometimes it made decisions just on the papers in front of it, sometimes it listened to the criminal, and sometimes statements from the victims were read out. We all accept in court cases that justice must not only be done but should be seen to be done, but that has not been the case with the arguments the Parole Board considers. There may be a case for keeping some privacy, because victims and their families may be mentioned, but when a decision is taken to release back into the community somebody who has done appalling things, the public are entitled to know what the basis for that was and what the arguments and evidence were.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I apologise for not making a speech today, but I am meeting Rhianon Bragg, whose case I raised in Justice questions. She has now received a letter of apology from the Secretary of State for Justice. Her medical, mental health details were given in a dossier to her abuser. She had previously applied to the Parole Board for his release hearing to be held in public, and that has been refused.

This mistreatment of a victim by the criminal justice system in itself warrants a public Parole Board hearing, because the public need to know why that happened. She has now been advised to apply to attend the Parole Board hearing in private but, frankly, this case is an example of it being in the public interest of justice for there to be an appeal procedure for the Parole Board. Far more Parole Board hearings should be in public, as the hon. Gentleman is calling for.

[Graham Stringer]

I agree with the right hon. Lady, and thank her for her intervention.

We do not only want transparency; there needs to be an examination of the statistics. We were told on the Science and Technology Committee that the percentage of prisoners applying for parole and getting it had gradually increased over the last 25 years from 10% to 30%—that is a huge change. My suspicion is that, even though it will not be down in writing, there is tremendous pressure on the number of people in prison. There is tremendous pressure on the costs; it costs a lot of money to keep somebody in prison. Somewhere in the background, without it being stated explicitly, there is pressure to get more people out, and that—probably—means that some people are being released into the community who are a risk to it.

The statistics on reoffending appear to be small. We were told on the Committee that in recent times 12 people have been released who have committed murder, and there have been a number of other serious crimes. As percentages, those are very low, but obviously those crimes are an absolute catastrophe for every family who has lost somebody to a murderer, and for the person who was murdered, and an indication that something has gone seriously wrong.

The Parole Board keeps for three years statistics on offences by people released on parole. When we questioned the chief executive of the Parole Board, we were told, “Well, after three years there is not a lot to learn, because Parole Board members may have changed and the process may be slightly different.” I do not accept that. Many of these prisoners are in for life, and the statistics that are kept should be kept for the whole of their lives, until they die of natural causes or go back to prison, so that we really know what is happening.

There was also a serious conflict of evidence between the Parole Board and some of the academic witnesses about how likely repeat offending was. According to the notes we had as Committee members, and what was said, there was a 25% reoffending rate for sexual offences against children who were non-family members. I have to say that the Parole Board did not accept that figure, but the academics were clear.

The other dispute over the evidence was that, in looking at the three-year period, many of the academics said that there is a curve showing that offending for certain offences was more likely the longer the period. Again, the Parole Board disputed that. If there are good records, these things can be verified factually; we should know what the answer is.

When it comes to the process of deciding whether somebody should be released, the Parole Board has limited tools. Psychiatrists and psychologists give reports. I say as a scientist, as well as a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, that sciences such as astronomy and many other branches of physics are predictive: we know where Saturn or Mars will be in 10 months, 10 years or 100 years.

Psychiatry and psychology are not predictive. The evidence before the Science and Technology Committee was that the psychiatric and psychological methods used for assessment were 20 years out of date, and that there were better ways to do it. Even with the better ways, there is no certainty around the risk of a prisoner reoffending. Even though the tools used at present are better, they are limited.

The second point is that statistically, given a series of factors, prediction is more accurate. On a statistical basis, it can be said that, given those factors, 2% of prisoners will reoffend, but we do not know which 2%. It is important to know the risk, but none of that gives a guarantee that a person will not reoffend. It is worth considering that against the background of the large increase in the number of people being released back into the community.

I have tried to stay with the factual basis of what the science says, what the science can and cannot do, and the practical mistakes made by the Parole Board. We heard very concerning evidence that a sex offender treatment programme increased rather than reduced the chance of reoffending. That programme should be looked at. There should be a clear definition of what is meant by public protection and how it is measured. In addition to that sex offender programme, there should be a proper assessment of all rehabilitation programmes and where they take place.

I have already mentioned that Worboys was a category A prisoner when a decision was taken to consider him for parole. We were told that he was not on his own. We were also told that it was almost unheard of 25 years ago for category C prisoners to be considered for parole, let alone categories B and A. That seems to be one reason for the increase in prisoners being released. The previous process of rehabilitation programmes in prison, with people moving down the category list into open prisons, is less common, although it has not been abandoned. There are certainly many exceptions to that rule. We did not hear any reasons why those exceptions had been made.

I have talked for quite a long time. These issues are important—I know our constituents consider them to be important—and very difficult ones. I refer people who think that the Parole Board can be objective to what I think is not a nice but a rather brilliant film by Stanley Kubrick, “A Clockwork Orange”. It has a different ending, incidentally, from that in Anthony Burgess’s book. Had he been alive, Burgess would have been at one time a constituent of mine; he was born and brought up in my constituency.

Alex DeLarge, the villain of the piece—a hooligan and rapist—goes through all sorts of psychological brainwashing processes to turn him into a model citizen. At the end of the film, when the establishment says, “This has worked; we have now turned Alex into a decent human being”, he turns round and winks at the camera. In a rather unpleasant way, that is a celebration of how the human spirit cannot be brainwashed and he, one guesses, is still the nasty person he was at the beginning of the film.

The Parole Board has a difficult job in assessing cases. It is a necessary job, but it has gone away from the standards of evidence and from being able to tell us that it has been thorough with the procedures. In two of the cases that I have brought up, the Parole Board has failed to tell the victims and families, and that should be an impediment to somebody leaving. The probation service wrote to me and said that it is difficult to find families 20 years later. It might be difficult, but if it uses the local press and tells people and is transparent, it might be a great deal easier to find members of families who have moved and changed their telephone numbers.

I am not saying that the Parole Board’s job is easy—it is difficult—but it has not been done as thoroughly and well as it could have been. People have been put at risk and potentially put at risk. The Government need to change the policy on the basis of the evidence and make sure that the public are secure by not allowing some people to get parole and by making sure that they are as certain as they can be that some other people pose no risk to the public.

09:58

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray. I thank the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for leading the debate, and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who has had to go to another meeting, for her great knowledge of the subject. If she had been able to make a speech, that would have added to the debate, but her interventions certainly helped to steer it in a certain direction.

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton is absolutely right. I will echo his concerns and give some examples from Northern Ireland, although the Minister here today does not have direct responsibility for all that happens in relation to the Parole Board or, as it is in Northern Ireland, the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland. I appreciate that the Parole Board is complex, and is limited mostly to England and Wales, and it is important to recognise that we have a separate entity in Northern Ireland.

The 2018-19 parole reforms were crucial for the safety of victims during the parole process. They were partly a response to the case of John Radford, a prolific rapist who committed over 100 assaults. None of his victims was informed when he was released on parole, when they should have been. The case resonated with me at the time in terms of the importance of supporting and defending the victims of crime.

I remember a case in my constituency of Strangford in Northern Ireland. A lady was in the major supermarket in Newtownards one day, when she turned a corner to be met with the man who had murdered her son during the troubles. She had no idea that he had been released; she had never been consulted or told. That lady was shocked and traumatised when she turned the corner of the shelves and there he was—blatant, unrepentant and with almost a wink of his eye as he looked towards her. The impact on her was dramatic, and if it were not for the fact she had the trolley and the shelves to lean on, she would probably have collapsed there and then in the aisle of the shop.

In that case, due diligence had clearly not been completed. We must support such measures for any future changes to the Parole Board or the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland. The traumatising of the public or retraumatising of the victim should be at the heart of the discussion. I have extreme concerns about that, as, I am sure, do many across the House. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton clearly and succinctly put that matter on record.

There have been ongoing discussions about whether it is acceptable for the Parole Board to be an executive non-departmental public body or whether it is more appropriate for it to be a part of the court system. The Minister always takes our thoughts on board and tries to respond positively, so will he clarify that point?

In my office, we often have phone calls about matters such as custody of children, family finance issues and marital support. Fortunately—or unfortunately, perhaps —as elected representatives we have no say in relation to legal matters. We have been told to leave such issues up to the courts, solicitors and tribunals. I always do that; I never advise on a legal matter, as I am not qualified to do so. I can give people information about where in the town they can seek legal advice. If it is a work issue, I will refer them to the Labour Relations Agency. The best legal advice comes from people who are qualified to respond.

However, with the parole system, there are circumstances where the Secretary of State can have a say and apply to the Parole Board for reconsideration of a decision that has been made. I am ever mindful that in Northern Ireland, with the troubles we have had, the case for many who have lost loved ones is real. In a small Province like our own, in many cases those who have committed the most beastly, monstrous and terrible crimes walk the streets, so victims will always be paramount in my consideration.

Victims of crimes can ask the Secretary of State for a reconsideration mechanism, but I believe the victims themselves should be able to take these matters forward, as ultimately it is their lives that will be turned upside down. Some victims I know carry the burden of a lost one to their very grave. I have personally known some of those people; I often think of the ones who lost their lives in the troubles. I particularly remember someone whose family member was murdered by the IRA, and he told me that he thought of them every morning when he woke up and every night when he went to bed. That is what it means for victims, and then they see the perpetrators of those crimes walking the streets—I will use the word “unrepentant,” because in many cases they are; there might be some who wish they had never done what they did, but there are many who do not have that attitude.

The changes recommended by the 2022 root-and-branch review of the statutory test for release still must be implemented. The UK Government have argued that in the absence of parliamentary intervention, the application of the current test has drifted from its original intention. In the most serious cases, I believe that Parliament should have a role to intervene where the victim is comfortable and satisfied with Parliament and Government doing so. Again, that is my request to the Minister: is that something that the Government would consider? I think that should be done, and I am keen to hear the Minister’s response.

A more precautionary approach must be taken, with more input from more representatives to ensure the very best outcome. Parole hearings need to take into account what are described as top-tier offences—for example, murder, rape, terrorism or terrorism-related offences, and allowing or causing the death of a child. I find it impossible to fathom, or to understand in its entirety, the pain of those who have lost loved ones for those reasons, and how that traumatises the family—that mum, dad, brother, sister, grandparent, uncle or aunt—forever. In many people’s humble opinion, those sorts of crimes do not warrant parole or release, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said in his introduction. Those crimes are of such magnitude, ferocity and evilness that I probably would not support parole for them, on the grounds that the victims’ families should be paramount in any decision on release. In many people’s humble opinion, not just mine, those sorts of crimes do not warrant parole, or being released but under review. When such a decision is to be made, it must be referred to the Secretary of State and to central Government here.

The onus of this discussion has always been on, and should always remain with, the victims of crimes. It is sometimes easy for behaviour to be assessed after years have passed, and sometimes people can change, but the hurt and torment never go away for those who are left to pick up the pieces. Victims deserve to have their opinions aired at public tribunals, and those opinions must be paramount in all that happens. They deserve to feel safe in the communities they live in; more importantly, they deserve to feel that our judicial system and our Government are working for them and only for them—for the victims, not the perpetrators, of those awful crimes and for the lives that have been changed forever. It is those for victims that I am here today, as is the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton.

10:07

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on having secured this hugely important debate to highlight the urgent challenges facing the parole system. Much of my speech will reflect and build on his concerns.

My hon. Friend mentioned the deeply distressing case of Andrew Barlow, formerly known as Andrew Longmire, and I echo his concerns. I, too, welcome the Lord Chancellor’s referral of the case back to the Parole Board for reconsideration that was announced yesterday; it is a testament to the hard work and campaigning of the victims. I also put on record my admiration for my hon. Friend and the vital work he has done, championing those victims’ cause in Parliament. As a former journalist, I also commend the role of the media in this particular case. However, it is totally unacceptable that the victims and their families did not receive the expected prior notification of Barlow’s planned release. Sadly, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), such failures are regularly repeated.

I am aware that the head of the Parole Board has expressed regret at the fact that some of Barlow’s victims were not informed, but that is simply not good enough. I note that when Sonia Flynn, the chief probation officer, gave evidence to the Science and Technology Committee last year, she confirmed:

“It is in statute that we must consult victims of serious crime on their view of release, and for them to also give our victim liaison officers a view regarding the protections that we need to put in place to reduce their concerns about that individual if the Parole Board does choose to release—particularly the obvious concern that they could bump into them in the street.”

It is deeply worrying that, even with a case as serious as this one, mistakes have been made.

I was horrified to learn that one of the victims, who still has nightmares three decades on as a result of the horror of Mr Barlow’s offending, only found out about his potential release, as we have heard, by reading the Manchester Evening News. We cannot allow our justice system to continue to treat victims as an afterthought. All of Andrew Barlow’s victims should have been signed up to the victim contact scheme and received communications from a victim liaison officer regarding how long he would be in prison, when he was up for parole and when he was likely to be released. They should have been told how to make a victim’s statement at the parole hearing. Such failings can retraumatise victims and seriously damage the public’s confidence in our justice system.

The Parole Board’s statutory purpose is to ensure that people who are dangerous are not released back into the community. It is a system designed to ensure public safety and to protect victims of crime, but after 12 years of Tory incompetence and chaos, our justice system is on its knees. Before the Minister uses the P-word, let me say that it was chaotic before the pandemic. Public confidence in the system is already near breaking point and with each further failing it gets closer to collapse. The Sentencing Council’s 2022 research report tells us that 45% of those surveyed were not confident in the criminal justice system’s effectiveness and 44% were not confident in its fairness. Does the Minister share my shock at those statistics? Public trust, efficacy and fairness of criminal justice are vital, or we will see fewer victims coming forward to report crimes and even greater numbers withdrawing midway through the process.

The 2019 Conservative manifesto promised to support all victims of crime and do right by victims, but the Government simply have not addressed these ongoing problems. How can year-long court delays and chronic staffing shortages from one end of the system to another contribute to a system that is doing right by victims? The Minister will not be surprised by my next question: when will the victims Bill come before the House?

It is clear to us all that the Government have completely lost their grip on criminal justice. Labour is the only party that can be trusted to deliver on law and order. We know that careful parole decisions are essential to reducing reoffending and its costs to society. Reoffending costs our society an astonishing £18 billion each year according to the Government’s own figures. Changes to the parole system introduced by the Government in June last year prohibit probation officers from giving a view or making recommendations to the Parole Board on progression or release of prisoners, thus removing an important element of professional expert knowledge from the process. In his evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, Martin Jones—CEO of the Parole Board—emphasised this expertise by saying,

“It is really important to make the point that we get evidence from prison and probation officers on whether a person is safe to be released or not, and work by the Ministry of Justice some years ago suggested that 90% of our decisions are in line with the evidence provided by report writers. That provides some evidence of consistency.”

In July last year, the three recognised Probation Service unions—Napo, Unison and the GMB—penned a letter to the Secretary of State with warnings about the serious consequences of the decision to prevent probation staff from making recommendations in written reports and oral evidence to the Parole Board under any circumstance. The ability to do so has long been a vital and valued part of the parole process. The unions warned that the decision

“severely endangers the ability of the Probation Service to protect victims of the most serious offences, and indeed the wider public, from the risk of serious harm posed by many individuals involved in the parole system.”

It further de-professionalises this vital public service role, leading to staff demoralisation, and exacerbating the retention problems that the Probation Service already faces. Prison and probation officers work hard day in, day out to deliver justice, and yet again they have been dismissed, undervalued and let down by this Tory Government. Speaking to the Ministry of Justice last year, a senior probation official said:

“It is extremely difficult and very disappointing that the Parole Board is the last to hear about important decisions which strike at the very heart of the difficult decisions we are asked to make. It makes our members’ already difficult job close to impossible.”

In fact, Napo members raised concerns about having to supervise someone in the community who they would not have recommended for release. They talked about the extreme stress that could cause, as well as the increased risk of further serious offences.

I am interested to hear from the Minister why removing probation recommendations was not included in the root-and-branch review of the Parole Board, and why there was no prior consultation with all stakeholders before the changes were implemented. Napo is concerned that removing professional recommendations in parole will lead to inappropriate releases and the non-release of those who otherwise may have been granted parole. Will the Minister share what impact assessment has been carried out on that particular issue, and confirm whether the Government sought the views of the Parole Board itself about having to make release decisions without expert witness recommendations?

The changes allow for the Secretary of State to make recommendations. That happens only in the most serious of cases—around 150 of the 6,000 that the Parole Board deals with each year. The remaining cases will now have no recommendation given, which seems astonishing to me. I ask the Minister for further information on the so-called “critical few” cases that the Secretary of State will be involved in. Can the Minister share how many oral hearings have been attended by a Secretary of State’s representative in recent times? In how many of those oral hearings did the Secretary of State’s representative recommend no progression—either from closed or open conditions, to open conditions from closed conditions, or release on licence?

Public hearings, the other major change introduced last year, were consulted on via the root-and-branch review. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton mentioned that as well. Personally, I am in favour of increasing the transparency of such hearings. When done properly, they could help to improve public confidence in the system. I know there have been only a few public hearings since their introduction, but could the Minister provide an update on how they are running, and how much engagement there has been with them? I understand that a remote link has to be set up to allow viewing, so I assume the Government have some sense of how many people are attending.

Finally, our probation service is still reeling from the reckless transforming rehabilitation programme, a failed experiment in privatisation. That disaster proceeded because the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), failed to listen to the warnings of those with the wealth of experience and expertise. I sincerely hope the current Secretary of State does not make the same mistake with parole.

10:17

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair and serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on securing this important debate. His speech was thoughtful, deliberative and balanced. He spoke in the light of some of the most appalling and horrific crimes, murders and rapes that we have known in our lifetimes. The thoughts of all of us in this House are with the victims of those terrible crimes and their families. Their loss—their tragedy—does not dim with time. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, victims must always be paramount in the system. The system must work for them and must be seen to do so.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the vital and difficult role that the Parole Board plays, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said, in protecting the public by making decisions about the release of some of the most serious offenders in our system. It is critical that the parole system works as effectively as possible to keep the public safe. That is, and must be, the top priority. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the September hearing of the Science and Technology Committee, of which he is a member. I have read the transcript of that hearing and agree that it was important and useful. He rightly said that statistics are important, as is understanding the statistics. He also said, and he was right, that statistics can only ever take us so far, because a serious reoffence is the most complete catastrophe—I think those were the words he used—for an individual and their family.

He made a specific point about reoffending statistics. I want to clarify that under the probation serious further offence procedures, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service captures data on every serious further offence that is committed by an offender who has been released by the Parole Board, regardless of how long afterwards that serious further offence was committed. I will write to him with the data behind that.

As has been mentioned by Members, including the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), the Government conducted a root-and-branch review of the parole system, which was published last year. It set out our proposals for making further improvements. I will say a little about the measures that we are taking, as well as seeking to address some of the points that colleagues have made.

We have heard about the impact on victims when offenders are considered for release by the Parole Board. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton for his unfailing support for constituents who have been so dreadfully affected by serious offending. These are difficult and deeply distressing times for them, and I want to apologise to any who have not received the service that they should have. Their experiences demonstrate why it is so important to ensure that they, and the victims of other terrible crimes, are properly supported.

To that end, I will explain the measures that we are taking to improve the way the victim contact scheme operates, particularly when it comes to tracing and working with victims of offences that were committed before the scheme was established. I hope my comments about the action that we are taking will reassure colleagues about how seriously we take these matters and that, despite the problems that sometimes regrettably occur, we do have an effective system for keeping victims informed about the parole process.

One of the Government’s priorities, as set out in the root-and-branch review, is to improve openness and transparency. We want to enhance public understanding and bolster confidence. It is clear that in all cases, victims need to be kept updated on what is going on in their case, and we are looking at ways to improve that.

Before I say more about our plans to reform the system, it might be helpful if I first briefly go through the legislative framework within which the Parole Board operates. The Parole Board’s purpose is to decide whether prisoners convicted of serious, violent or sexual offences, who are serving certain types of sentences, can be safely released into the community on licence. The sentences dealt with by the Parole Board include life sentences, indeterminate sentences for public protection, extended determinate sentences and the sentences of those who are recalled to prison for breaching the terms of their licence. When passing sentence, the trial judge will set a minimum custodial period, which the offender must serve in prison for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. Once the minimum period has been served, the Secretary of State is required to refer these cases to the Parole Board so that the prisoner’s suitability for release on licence can be considered.

That decision is about the offender’s current risk, having completed the part of the sentence that the judge has said must be spent in prison for the offences committed. The wording of the statutory test for release is clear. The Parole Board must not give a direction for a prisoner’s release unless the board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner be confined in prison. When applying the public protection test, the Parole Board needs to consider whether there is a risk of serious harm. If release is directed, the Secretary of State must comply with that direction unless it appears legally flawed, in which case the Secretary of State has the power to ask for the decision to be reconsidered.

The Parole Board is an independent body with expertise in risk assessment. It takes robust and fully-evidenced decisions. The board takes public protection very seriously. In around three out of four of the cases that are referred to the board, it decides to keep the offender in prison for the protection of the public. Where the board does direct release, less than 0.5% of the people in those cases go on to commit a serious further offence within three years. Any serious further offence is, of course, a tragedy and is fully investigated. The vast majority of offenders released by the board do not go on to cause serious further harm.

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton raised the Worboys case. That awful case highlighted the need for improved transparency, especially for victims, about the reasons for a Parole Board release decision. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in 2018 we introduced decision summaries, which are now routinely provided to victims and others to explain why the board has directed a prisoner’s release. The case also highlighted the need for a better and easier way to challenge parole decisions if they can be shown to be flawed. That led to the introduction in 2019 of the reconsideration mechanism, which the Secretary of State uses in cases in which he considers that a release decision should be looked at again.

We intend to go further to ensure that the system is as robust as possible. The root-and-branch review set out key proposed reforms that aim to ensure that public protection is the overriding consideration for release decisions and to introduce additional safeguards into the system.

[Graham Stringer]

I thank the Minister for his kind remarks. Will he respond to the two points that I made in the area that he is considering at the moment? One was that there seems to be an unexplained and dramatic increase in the 25% of prisoners who, as he just mentioned, are being released. The other was that category A, B and C prisoners are also being recommended for parole, which was not previously the case.

[Damian Hinds]

I will respond to the hon. Gentleman on the precise numbers in correspondence, if I may. The important point is that every case is considered individually on its merits; that has to be at the heart of how the Parole Board goes about its business.

We will make the release test more prescriptive, so it is absolutely clear that prisoners should continue to be detained unless it can be demonstrated that they no longer present a risk of further serious offending. Secondly, for a top tier of the most serious offenders—I think that the hon. Member for Stockton North asked for clarification on what the tier consists of; it is those sentenced for murder, rape, causing or allowing the death of a child, and terrorist offences—we will legislate to give Ministers the power to refuse a release decision made by the Parole Board if they disagree with the board’s view that the release test has been met. That will provide an additional safeguard and, I hope, further reassurance to victims that for the most serious offenders, including murderers and rapists, there will be oversight by Ministers, who will be able to prevent release if that is considered necessary to keep the public safe.

Thirdly, we will legislate to ensure that the Parole Board’s membership includes more people with law enforcement backgrounds, who will sit on panels dealing with the most serious cases. Having more members who are, for instance, ex-police officers with first-hand experience of tackling crime in our communities and dealing with serious offenders will further enhance the Parole Board’s expertise in assessing the risk such offenders present. The measures that I have described will require primary legislation, which, to respond to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, we will introduce at the earliest opportunity.

We have already taken other steps within the system to enhance public protection and increase confidence. For example, we have reformed the way indeterminate sentence prisoners are moved to open prison conditions, and Ministers can block such moves if they do not meet new, tougher criteria. Also, we have introduced a new system whereby Ministers can submit an overarching view to the Parole Board about release in some of the most serious and troubling cases before any decisions are taken. That ensures that it is made very clear to the board at the outset if there is a case where Ministers would be opposed to the prisoner’s release.

I return to the important issue of victims’ experience of the parole system, which is at the heart of the case that the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton made, and the measures that we are taking on it. When offenders are being assessed for release by the Parole Board, it can be a very difficult and distressing time for victims. We want to improve the way victims are engaged in that process, give them additional opportunities to hear about what is going on, and make them feel and know that they have more of a voice.

The mechanism by which victims are kept informed about parole is the victim contact scheme, which is operated by the probation service. It was first established in 2001 and applies to victims of sexual and violent offending where the offender is sentenced to imprisonment of 12 months or more. Victims who have signed up to the contact scheme should always be notified when a prisoner is coming up for potential release.

Victims have a choice about joining the victim contact scheme. If they choose to join, they will be kept up to date with key developments, including prisoners’ parole reviews, parole decisions and release decisions, by a dedicated victim liaison officer. During parole cases, victims can make a victim personal statement to the board, setting out the impact of the offence against them, and they may read it aloud to the Parole Board panel if an oral hearing is convened.

Victims also have the legal right to make requests about licence conditions, including a no-contact condition and an exclusion zone that prohibits the offender from entering areas where the victim lives, works or travels to frequently. Victims can also request a summary of the Parole Board decision and, where the Parole Board has directed release, they can ask the Secretary of State to consider applying to the Parole Board for the decision to be reconsidered.

It should be noted that some victims choose not to sign up to the victim contact scheme. Understandably, they may seek to do what they can to put the events of the case behind them. If there is no response to a second and third invitation to join the scheme, the probation service will properly respect their wishes and not keep contacting them. Victims can, however, join the scheme at any time, even if they have previously said no. A system in which all victims are notified about parole releases would not be practical for a number of reasons. For example, as I have said, not all victims will want to receive information, and unwanted contact from the service could retraumatise them.

The scheme was set up in 2001. For cases in the system before then, in relation to the victims of offences committed many years ago, it does not operate retrospectively. However, in the most serious and notorious of cases, such as some of those that have been referred to in this debate, the probation service should ask the police, through multi-agency public protection arrangements —known as MAPPAs—for support with tracing victims. In the Andrew Barlow case, which the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton talked about, the Greater Manchester probation region is working with Greater Manchester Police to trace victims of the offences that Mr Barlow committed in the 1980s and 1990s and invite them to join the victim contact scheme. I should also confirm that, as has been said, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State is applying to the Parole Board to reconsider its decision to direct Mr Barlow’s release on life licence. Probation victim liaison officers will keep victims in the scheme informed of progress with the application for reconsideration.

As for the measures we are taking to make further improvements, particularly to increase transparency and the information available to victims and others, we committed in the root-and-branch review to allowing victims to observe parole hearings for the first time. We also confirmed that we would change the rules to allow for public hearings in some cases. I know that that has come up this morning, and I will say a little bit about the progress that has been made on both those commitments.

Since October last, victims have been able to observe Parole Board hearings as part of a testing phase that is running in the south-west probation region. During the hearings, victims are supported by probation staff, who discuss the parole process with them and ensure that they are directed to relevant support. We are working closely with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners to ensure that tailored local support services are readily available, should victims require. We recognise that it could be retraumatising for a victim to hear the evidence that is explored during a parole hearing, so we are initially conducting a relatively small-scale testing phase to ensure we get the processes and support arrangements right. My paramount concern is to ensure that victims can observe the hearing in a way that is safe for them while not compromising the Parole Board’s ability to conduct a fair and rigorous assessment of risk.

The hon. Member for Stockton North asked for an update on progress. During the testing phase so far, victims have welcomed the opportunity to observe hearings. Following their feedback, we are working to improve the process to prepare for its expansion across England and Wales.

Last year, having made changes to the Parole Board rules, we also saw the first public Parole Board hearing, which was in the case of Russell Causley in December. A second public hearing has been agreed by the board and will take place this year in the case of Charles Salvador, formerly known as Charles Bronson. These changes will help to improve public understanding and awareness of the parole process.

In the root-and-branch review, we also committed to reviewing the current guidance and requirements for providing victims with information about the parole process. Our review will identify areas for improving the information that victims currently receive through the victim contact scheme. We will ensure that, where victims have requested it, they receive effective, clear and timely communication about the parole process so that they are sufficiently informed as their case is progressed.

As part of the primary legislative reforms that I referred to earlier, we intend to require the Parole Board to consider written submissions from victims about the release of the prisoner. That will be in addition to the victim personal statement that victims are already permitted to make to the board. Again, that is about doing more to give victims a voice and an opportunity to put their concerns and views to the Parole Board.

I want briefly to cover a few other points that came up during the debate. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton raised the sex offender treatment programme. The SOTP was discontinued in the light of research evidence, and a new treatment programme has been introduced, which relies less on group work.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who is no longer in her place, indirectly raised a couple of points—one of which was also raised by the hon. Member for Stockton North—about the important issue of what is in the dossiers that are brought to the Parole Board and the content that comes from different perspectives and analyses. They both asked about not having individual staff recommendations. Reports will continue to provide all the same information, evidence and assessments about the prisoner as they currently do, with the exception of a recommendation or review from the report writer. The reason for that is that it is the Parole Board’s responsibility to decide whether the prisoner is safe to be released or should stay in prison for the protection of the public, based on the entirety of the evidence received. The written reports, including those from prison, probation and psychology staff, and the questioning of witnesses at oral hearings, will continue to provide all the evidence the board needs to enable it to reach fully informed decisions.

[Alex Cunningham]

The point about the information staff provide and how confident they are that it is being shared is important. I mentioned that staff appear to be concerned that we are releasing prisoners they would never have recommended be released. What does the Minister have to say to them about the credibility of information that is before the Parole Board, and the confidence in the decision?

[Damian Hinds]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises, the situation he describes could have happened anyway. I reassure him and other colleagues that this is not a diminution of the information that goes into the risk assessment. All of that information is still there, and that totality of information will be considered in the round.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and the hon. Member for Stockton North asked about the impact assessment on changes to the recommendation system. The right hon. Lady specifically asked about impact on minority ethnic offenders. I want to reassure them that that impact is being monitored, though it is too early to assess on a segmented basis. It is important that we keep such matters under review.

I hope I have been able to provide some reassurance that, through the actions the Government are taking, victims’ concerns and the protection of the public are at the heart of our vision for the future of the parole system. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this important, thoughtful and measured debate, and thank everybody who has taken part—in particular the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, who secured it.

10:41

[Graham Stringer]

I thank the Secretary of State for applying for reconsideration, and I thank the Minister and right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in the debate, which I agree has been thoughtful. I hope it has brought to light some of the procedural failings of the past that need to be put right, and that there are worrying gaps in the information available, the statistics and the trend in those statistics, particularly the increase in the number of prisoners getting parole. There appears to be no obvious reason for that, and we need to understand it. Thank you for chairing the debate, Mrs Murray.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of the Parole Board.

10:42

Sitting suspended.

Total Allowable Catches: Fisheries Negotiations

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Westminster Hall

11:04

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

I will call George Eustice to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I beg to move, 

That this House has considered the methodologies for setting total allowable catches for data-limited stocks in fisheries negotiations.>

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. It is very appropriate for you to chair this event since, as every Member present knows, your knowledge and experience of the fishing industry is unrivalled in this House. I am sure that, were you not being impartial in chairing the debate, you would have plenty to say on the matter.

In my time as a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, I had two key observations. First, every Minister comes in with plans for the environment, and one of the first things they need to learn is that the environment has plans for them, too, and they are not always very pleasant.

The second truth is that every Minister coming into DEFRA says that they will have an evidence-based approach and will follow the science. But when they ask the scientists what should be done, they find that the scientists are not quite sure. They talk about evidence gaps and things that they do not understand, and are reluctant to come up with a clear policy proposal. That means Fisheries Ministers in particular are inevitably left with the thankless task of trying to make policy decisions with imperfect evidence, but making the best use of the evidence that they have. Nowhere is that conundrum more complex than in fisheries.

I recall a fishing representative giving evidence to a Select Committee. As he put it, fisheries is not rocket science; it is way more complicated than that. There are uncertainties in the science and in the way we calculate maximum sustainable yield. There are difficulties, for instance, around assessing the age of a fish. The basic approach to maximum sustainable yield is to allow fish to reproduce for at least one generation, and that stock should be sustainable. Typically, scientists measure the average length of fish when they are landed to try to assess the age of the stock and its reproductive capacity. That is the essence of the calculations that take place.

But there are difficulties all round. First, fish of different ages tend to inhabit different parts of the ocean, and trying to make sense of that can be difficult. It can be a hit and miss science to understand exactly what the average length of a fish is, given that they are very mobile and move around.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I am extremely interested in what he has to say, and I spoke to him beforehand. I have one example of the importance of data. We have witnessed a remarkable turnaround with spurdog. In a most important fishery, limited data led to a ban on landing the species. However, the situation has changed dramatically, based on the data for 2023, with a total allowable catch agreed with the European Union for the year ahead based on up-to-date scientific advice. A statutory instrument is to follow, as the Minister knows. That is because of the data-limited status and the evidence that has made the change.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

Order. This is a 30-minute debate. If interventions are to be made, can we make them short and snappy, please?

[George Eustice]

I think I get the hon. Gentleman’s point and the Minister might want to address it, but my understanding is that there is now data on spurdog and a total allowable catch has been allocated. One consequence of leaving the European Union is that we have accountable processes in this House for introducing regulatory changes, and I believe a statutory instrument is needed, which takes time to introduce. In the EU, because there is no such accountability, the Commission can literally just issue delegated Acts and implementing Acts sometimes on a whim without any real process behind that.

To continue my point, the length of the fish is not always a good sign of its reproductive capacity, so there are complexities with some species—haddock, in particular—for reasons that we still do not really understand. Roughly every seven years we get a big recruitment year, and it is hard to predict when that will happen. It is difficult to differentiate between different species of the same genera, so we have, for instance, composite TACs for species such as skate and ray whereby there are some 24 different species in a single TAC. To try to make sense of that, we introduced prohibitions on landing some subspecies within the TAC, but sometimes it is hard—for fishermen and for scientists—to distinguish between species visually, even though we know they are biologically different.

For some species, age cannot be determined by the length of the fish. I remember being briefed that scientists had to go to other measurements, such as the size of a fish’s eardrums, to try to make an assessment because the fish’s length was not a reliable indicator of age, and it threw the calculation out.

There is also the problem of uncertainty around fishing mortality. In particular, we do not have accurate data on recreational angling. Recreational anglers and commercial fishermen have hours of fun blaming one another for the state of particular fish stocks, but exactly what is fishing mortality is a difficult conundrum. That is especially the case with species such as pollack and bass. There is a further complication, which is that fish eat one another. The marine environment is dynamic, and a healthy recovery of one species might put pressure on another, which is preyed on.

As if all that were not complicated enough, there is a political context in which Fisheries Ministers have to operate. The Fisheries Minister has to arbitrate between competing interests among different UK Administrations, and indeed competing interests among different sectors, such as the pelagic and white fish sectors, the inshore fleet and so on. To reach a compromise with other countries to get a multilateral agreement on how to approach fisheries, we will, at times, have to accept others’ interpretation of the science, which might not be entirely in line with our own. If we do not get a compromise and do not get an agreement, and people unilaterally set quotas, that is the worst of all worlds.

Finally, there is a tendency, once policy in fisheries is set, for it to be set in stone. It is easy to follow the path of least resistance, and to do this year what we did last year, putting off changing things to a future year, only to find in a decade or 15 years that it is too difficult to change everything because the concrete has set. That was the case, for instance, in the EU era when we had relative stability, although the landing shares of different countries were hugely outdated. However, under qualified majority voting it was impossible for the UK ever to argue for change because the only countries that would have supported us in arguing that also wanted our fish in return for their support.

My right hon. Friend the Minister joins a small club of Fisheries Ministers and former Fisheries Ministers who have had to wrestle with those dilemmas, and he has to make the best judgment he can using the evidence available to him, but he does have one thing in his favour, as we all do, which is the support of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science.

Without question, CEFAS is the world’s leading fisheries science organisation, and its head office and main research facilities are in Lowestoft. If Members visit Weymouth, they will find a global centre of excellence on fish health, and in the reception at Weymouth are probably the best-cared-for carp in the world. CEFAS is very influential on the deliberations and methodologies applied by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Indeed, our current chief fisheries scientist, Carl O’Brien, is also vice-president of ICES and a leading authority in this area.

I remember going every year during the EU era to the December European Council, and CEFAS would often detect and have to correct errors made by the Commission services. DG MARE—the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries—did not particularly welcome the fact that an agency from a nation state was correcting its errors, but it nevertheless accepted when it was wrong. Of course, CEFAS always offered advice in an understated, very British way, which made it as easy as possible for the Commission to deal with those errors.

My purpose in calling the debate is to encourage the Minister not to allow the concrete to set on the way we interpret the science, and to ensure in all the bilateral fisheries negotiations we have that CEFAS’s pre-eminent scientific knowledge is projected forwards and shapes not just the approach for negotiations with Norway or the European Union, but the methodologies taken by organisations likes ICES. The particular prompt for the debate was the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation highlighting to me a particular case of pollack in the Celtic sea.

In the EU era, there were three principal ways of assessing data-limited stocks. The first was taking a precautionary approach, which simply meant an arbitrary 20% cut on species where we had limited data—that is, not a full dataset to enable a maximum sustainable yield assessment. The second was a “use it or lose it” approach. Empirical evidence from the previous year’s catch would be used to say, “Well, if they haven’t caught it, it is probably not there.” The third was saying there should be a roll-over approach. In essence, that was an assessment that the stocks are probably in a good shape, so we should just leave it where it is and roll it over year to year until the evidence suggests otherwise.

Even when we were in the European Union, we ferociously resisted these arbitrary, unscientific approaches. To be fair to the European Union, it was not just something that it had made up; its approach often reflected ICES advice in some of these areas. For over a decade now, ICES has recognised that those arbitrary approaches are not fit for purpose. In fact, probably as long ago as five years ago, CEFAS identified and developed a superior methodology based on making the best judgment we could with the evidence we had. We termed it as using biomass trends to assess what the TAC should be with these stocks. It effectively meant having a moving average assessment of the stock and aggregating data across several different years to avoid sharp changes in the TAC in one direction each year, and each year the aggregate data would get more reliable. For a while, even in the EU, we actually got them to accept that this was a better way to approach things, and that is what we used to seek and usually secured at December Councils.

The thing that caught my eye in the press release from the CFPO was that it alleged that the Celtic sea pollack stock had been set under the old-fashioned “use it or lose it” methodology. There are lots of reasons why fishermen may not have caught fish—it could be that the market conditions were not right or that there was bad weather at the end of the year. That is why it is a wholly inappropriate basis on which to assess the health of a stock. My question for the Minister is, whatever happened to the work that CEFAS did on data-limited stocks and that biomass trend approach? Will he seek to reinvigorate that work or update Members here on what CEFAS is doing in this area? Most importantly, will he ensure that we use the soft power we have through pre-eminent scientific knowledge in fisheries to shape how not just the EU and Norway, but ICES approaches these difficult issues?

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has taken the case study of Celtic sea pollack. Would he consider how his approach might also help solve the dilemma with southern North sea spurdog? I was on CEFAS Endeavour on Monday morning and saw its excellent work, so could he quickly help us out of our dilemma on spurdog?

[George Eustice]

I will be quick because I explained this earlier. My understanding—as a former Fisheries Minister, one’s knowledge decays over time and the existing Minister will have far more knowledge than me—is that there is at least some evidence now to make an assessment on spurdog. I do not know whether it is a full dataset to provide a MSY assessment. Nevertheless, a TAC has been set on that basis and I believe it is simply a parliamentary procedure to get a regulation in place to enable that TAC to take effect, but I am sure the Minister will have heard my hon. Friend’s question.

09:30

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I am glad to see you in the Chair, rather than in the Chamber intervening and asking me awkward questions.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) for securing the debate. I recognise his huge contribution to the future of fisheries from his work at DEFRA with fisheries; I hope that future is rosy and bright. It is worth putting on record the efforts he went to and the improvements he made to that industry, which I know is grateful for all his past work.

I recognise that there is a huge amount of experience and knowledge within the Chamber, but there will be people at home who do not have the same depth of knowledge. I hope those present will forgive me if they recognise and understand some of the things I say, but it is important to set out where DEFRA is coming from and what we are trying to achieve.

It is tempting to simply say yes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, as many of the things he said are accurate, but I can assure him that we are not slipping back into those old ways, which he may be nervous about. It is just a coincidence that the 20% figure, particularly on pollock, has been arrived at, but I will get to that later in the debate.

We recognise that the fishing sector is under huge pressure. It faces challenges over increased fuel prices and getting access to labour. We recognise the hard work that the fishing sector is putting in and we look forward to working with the sector to try to assist it on its journey.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide some further explanation on one important element of how we arrive at TACs—the total allowable catch. The definition of a data-limited stock comes from the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth said. ICES undertake the stock assessments that the UK and its neighbouring states rely on to set TACs for the shared stocks. ICES categorises its advice on a scale of 1 to 6, based on the available data and type of assessment used to generate the advice. For stocks where there is insufficient data, it can use analytic stock assessments. Data-rich stocks are categorised as ICES category 1 and 2. Stocks where the available data and assessment techniques fall short of these standards are classified by ICES as categories 3 to 6 and are truly data-limited stocks.

How does ICES provide advice on data-limited stocks? Historically, ICES has provided advice on data-limited stocks by adopting a precautionary approach. That was implemented by applying a 20% decrease, as my right hon. Friend said, in advised catches where stocks are considered either at risk or their status is unknown. ICES continues to improve its advice on data-limited stocks, and those efforts have increased since 2011, when ICES recognised the need to standardise and refine the data-limited methods.

That means that the precautionary 20% buffer is still used by ICES but only in increasingly rare situations, as new approaches to stock assessments and advice have been developed. ICES also continues to consider if it can justify moving stock assessments out of the data-limited category. As data and methods are slowly improving, this has resulted in a steady increase in the number classified as categories 1 and 2.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Does the Minister share my frustration that after so many years monkfish is still regarded as a data-deficient species, given its very high value to the Scottish fleet?

[Mark Spencer]

It is easy to be critical of the data and science that are available to us. The right hon. Gentleman will know that fish move in the sea. It is not like counting sheep in a field; it is much more complicated than that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth identifies, fish predate each other, and a boom in one species can result in a diminishing number of another. We are trying to measure and get data on a constantly moving feast.

How do we approach data-limited stocks in international negotiations? From a fisheries management perspective, data-limited stocks can present challenges when it comes to deciding how to use the scientific advice produced by ICES in setting TACs. Since becoming an independent coastal state, the UK’s approach to developing TAC positions has evolved. We do not use any of the EU’s historical approaches, such as “use it or lose it”, as my right hon. Friend identified. Our approach is led entirely by our domestic policy framework, and the Fisheries Act 2020 objectives are our guiding light.

In the case of data-limited stocks, there are two Fisheries Act objectives that are particularly important: the scientific evidence objective and the precautionary objective. The combined objectives lead us to the position that our starting point for every stock is the ICES scientific advice, even when the data is limited. However, we of course consider each stock on a case-by-case basis, taking into account wider socioeconomic factors and the potential impact on the fishing industry of the decisions. That means that, for most data-limited stocks, we will advocate the application of the ICES-advised tonnage, but in particular cases we may depart from ICES advice because of those wider considerations.

One data-limited stock in particular—namely western pollack—has raised some questions, as my right hon. Friend identified, so I want to provide further information on that important stock. ICES produces a stock assessment for western pollack, but it is classified as category 4, and therefore the advice uses the ICES precautionary advice framework. The advised catch for 2023 was 3,360 tonnes, and that figure has been the same since 2019. Over that period, the total allowable catch has consistently been set much higher than that. However, a long-term downward trend in landings, which more than halved from 2016 to 2021, is a cause for concern about the state of the stock; it suggests the need for a lower TAC to prevent the stock from becoming over-exploited. The UK’s aim is therefore to bring the total allowable catch more in line with ICES’s advice. This year, a 20% cut was agreed with the EU for 2023, which follows on from the 15% cut negotiated with the EU last year. The size of the cut is a product of the negotiation process, but is not based on any particular rule or approach.

We have acted in several ways to support the improvement of the data on fish stocks. Through the fisheries industry science partnerships scheme, DEFRA has been directly encouraging applicants to tender for data collection activities. That has proved very successful: there are 12 large projects directly investigating and collecting data on data-limited stocks. That will mean that over 70% of FISP funding, which equates to over £5 million, will have been awarded to projects of that type. They include a 24-month project on data collection and research on pollack in the south-west. We are also working with the EU, through our Specialised Committee on Fisheries, to improve the management and support of the recovery of certain data-limited deep-sea stocks, namely roundnose grenadier and western red seabream.

Let me reflect on the UK’s overarching approach in setting advice in line with scientific advice, and conclude with some reflections on our broader progress in using science to set total allowable catches. As I explained earlier, our starting position in setting a TAC is that the best available scientific advice should be followed. That helps to ensure that key fish stocks are protected and supports the long-term viability of the UK fishing industry. We strongly champion that approach in our international negotiations, and this year we have made significant progress on the UK-EU bilateral negotiations. Overall in the UK-EU bilateral, we have achieved an estimated 13% increase in catch levels aligning with ICES advice, compared with last year. That is a huge improvement in the sustainability of what we fish. I am pleased to report that positive progress, but I recognise that further improvements are needed. We will therefore continue to work proactively with our industry, our scientific colleagues in CEFAS and ICES, and colleagues in the devolved Administrations, the EU, Norway and coastal states, to ensure that positive momentum is continued.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister explain why EU fishers can catch spurdog and UK fishers still cannot? Why is there a delay in the UK allowing UK fishers to do so? How is it that we are now slower in allowing our fishers to catch that stock than we were when we were in the EU?

[Mark Spencer]

In the UK, we have a respectful democratic process by which we have to bring forward a statutory instrument. That statutory instrument is drafted and we are ready to roll with it, but we are waiting for business managers to find us a slot. We want to do that as quickly as possible to allow people to get out there and start catching spurdog. We have a great democratic process in the United Kingdom that holds people to account and allows people to object if they have a different view.

[Peter Aldous]

Can I come back on spurdog? I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for raising the matter. Off the East Anglian coast, the inshore fishermen who fish sustainably with long lines and nets cannot catch spurdog at the moment, but EU trawlers can. Does the Minister share my vision that we should have a fisheries management plan that embraces the ICES recommendation on limited-catch fishery for spurdog and enables local East Anglian fishermen, fishing responsibly, to catch it?

[Mark Spencer]

Our motivation is very much to allow this total allowable catch to be used, and we want to get on with that as quickly as possible. It is a new stock with a new quota. We want it to be done sustainably, and we want to get on with it. We will hurry up the democratic process to ensure that people who want to catch that species are allowed to do so.

[Luke Pollard]

There is a concern among fishers that this is the Government’s new modus operandi, and that UK fish policy will continue to be set a pace behind EU fish policy. Will the Minister set out an ambition to ensure that this Brexit delay in allocating spurdog catch will apply only to this species, and only this once? From now on, will Ministers ensure that any change in quota is pegged as much as possible to changes in EU quota so that our fishers do not suffer a disadvantage due to our new status as an independent coastal state?

[Mark Spencer]

I am conscious that this is turning into a spurdog debate, rather than the original debate. It would be worth somebody applying for a debate of that nature. Let me be absolutely clear: we have not been able to catch that species in the past. It is a new species and it requires a democratic motion to be passed through the House of Commons, and as soon as we have done that, we can get on with it. That is the right approach. We want to make sure we fish sustainably, and that requires that democracy takes its course so that people can scrutinise our decisions. I am very much aware of the desire to get on with this and allow our fishing industry to get on and catch this species. We will expedite that process as soon as possible. I will conclude there, and I thank colleagues for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Arts Council England: Funding

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[MR PETER BONE in the Chair]

14:30

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the funding decisions of Arts Council England.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and I am very grateful for the opportunity to return to this topic. It is also good to see the Minister in his place in Westminster Hall. As he will know, this topic has been ventilated before, but I think this debate broadens the issues.

As time has gone on, those of us who follow this issue have had more and more grounds for concern, not just about individual funding decisions by the Arts Council but about the process by which it makes them. That process lacks transparency and, I believe, accountability, and there is a lack of engagement with the sector at a time when funding reductions are being made. Those may be necessary in the overall economic climate, but they have been made in a distributional way that has taken no account of economic, social or other impacts—or, above all, of the overall responsibility of the Arts Council.

When the Arts Council was formed, it was set up

“to give more people opportunities to enjoy and benefit from great art and culture”—

I think it still has that phrase on the banner on its social media. It did not regard itself as an organisation about changing the nature of art or culture; it was about making excellence available to the greatest number of people. That was the vision of Keynes when he set it up and of people such as Jennie Lee when she was Arts Minister. In fact, I think Jennie Lee rightly said that it was important that everyone, wherever they were and whatever their circumstances, should have the opportunity of accessing the best in the arts rather than something cut-price or dumbed down. I rather fear that of late the Arts Council has lost its way in relation to that mission. Some of the specific funding decisions in the latest round highlight how it has gone wrong.

The Minister and others will know that I have raised in particular the issue of the removal of English National Opera from the national portfolio. That would have had the effect of creating 600 redundancies, and—for all the mealy words used by the Arts Council to begin with—it would have effectively meant the closure of the company. The idea that it would have been possible to relocate a 100-year-old company to a base in Manchester—more on that in a moment—at about 12 months’ notice was so risible that one wonders what experience and real understanding of the sector the bureaucrats in the Arts Council who drew up that decision ever had.

I am glad to say that discussions, hard work by English National Opera’s team and engagement with the Arts Council has led to some movement. I welcome the fact that there has been a willingness to listen and that funding has been secured, albeit with a reduction—a reduction perhaps on much the same level as those for other arts institutions. That will enable the 2023-24 season to continue next year. I hope that there will be better transition funding for the future. However, that is as yet uncertain. We have had a step forward, but at the moment English National Opera—a major international company that does co-productions with the Metropolitan Opera in New York and is a major draw for audiences—has had only a reprieve, rather than being saved in a form that is recognisably that of a high-class, top-rate opera company. That is not good enough.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and I congratulate him both on securing this debate and on his speech. I also welcome the concession made in respect of English National Opera. However, does he agree that the latest Arts Council declaration still leaves more than £50 million worth of cuts to London’s arts budget over three years? That not only has a devastating cultural impact but, as he suggests, an economic impact; I am thinking of employment and the vital revenue that pours into London from tourists and others who seek to attend these marvellous cultural institutions.

[Sir Robert Neill]

That is certainly true; as a London MP, I am conscious of it too. Of course there is more than one issue at play. One is the distribution—where the money goes. Secondly, there is the question of which institutions and sectors are worst affected by what happens. It does seem that the performing arts have been particularly hard hit. When I look at the trustees of the Arts Council, there seems to be a lack of experience in the performing arts as opposed to the visual arts. We should perhaps return to the composition of the board and management and whether relevant experience of those sectors is there.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Robert Neill]

I give way to the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Whether one’s experience is in the performing arts or the visual arts, everybody knows that it takes three to four years to put on a good opera of international standard or to put on an exhibition of paintings of international standard, with the co-operation of everybody involved. It seems peculiar that Ministers did not say to Arts Council England, “We understand that and, if you need to make changes, you need to make them over a six-year period, not a six-month period.”

[Sir Robert Neill]

My right hon. Friend makes a fair and valid point. When this matter has been debated in the past, Ministers have argued that this is an arm’s length body over which they have little control. With respect to the Minister, I am not sure that that entirely holds water. The Arts Council has said that a former Secretary of State, in its phrase, “instructed” it in relation to the distribution of some of the moneys.

That is a legitimate policy decision and stance for any Secretary of State to take, but it proves there is a power to instruct and intervene. That should not apply to the day-to-day running of an arm’s length body, but Ministers have an ability and right to set strategic direction and to ensure that there is proper governance and oversight and, at the end of the day, basic equity in how its operations and funding decisions, involving large sums of public money, are taken.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. On the proper functioning of the Arts Council, there is a specific consultation at the moment on music provision across the country. A concern is that the timeline of the consultation was announced in December 2022, and the first real engagement with stakeholders begins and concludes in January 2023. Ministers and the Government have a duty to ensure that the consultation is proper and thorough. Centres such as mine, Dynamics CIC in Medway, that offer outstanding music provision will be severely affected if it is not done properly and thoroughly, in a way that respects outstanding provision, rather than pulling things together geographically for financial reasons.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It highlights the interesting fact that this is not just a London issue. There are institutions outside London that have lost funding for no apparent reason. That is the difficulty: the lack of any apparent evidence base or transparent and proper process for these decisions. There is a lack of any proper consultation or impact assessment.

I have seen freedom of information responses rather perfunctorily provided to individuals by the Arts Council, in a process that appears to be like drawing teeth. Mr Bone, you and I have had experience of such things from public bodies in the past. It appears that no full impact assessments were made on individual changes, even though some of them will close institutions. Equalities impact assessments were made, but not the full impact assessment expected when dealing with many millions of pounds of public money, and the possibility of an institution ceasing to operate, with redundancies caused thereafter.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I congratulate him on this debate. This is at best half thought-out, and at worst an act of Luddism. I suspect that what we have seen with the revised proposals for the ENO, which do not save it in the long term, is just an admission that the Arts Council has got this wrong. Let me give him this quote:

“Sacrificing this particular golden goose for a bit of glib London-bashing will do little to improve cultural provision in the regions and would be an act of sabotage for one of our country’s greatest assets.”

That was the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) almost 10 years ago, the last time this was done, and it has not changed.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am sorry to say that is true. I do not object, in truth, to the idea that we should spend more arts funding across the rest of the country. I am not an opponent of levelling up as such, but I have always taken the view that that should not be at the expense of London. Decimating London is counter-productive, because much of the talent that performs in the rest of the country is London-based and London-trained, because that is where the critical mass of the arts world is. It is where the conservatoires and colleges are.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

One of the critical issues is defining what we mean by “levelling up the arts”. In relation to opera, this is not just about physical location. As a west midlands MP, I want more of my constituents to enjoy opera, but does that not mean that we need to define more clearly what levelling up opera might mean? That is what we lack in relation to the funding decisions: there is no overarching strategic view.

[Sir Robert Neill]

That neatly brings me to the next point, which is perhaps the most important. We have mentioned that the funding cut to the ENO would have been a woeful and destructive action. It still might happen: had Dr Harry Brünjes and Stuart Murphy, the chair and chief executive, all their team at the ENO and all the great artists—people such as Bryn Terfel and others, who started the petitions—rolled over to Arts Council England’s decisions, there would be redundancy notices at the London Coliseum this week, and 600 professional people would have been out of a job thanks to Arts Council England’s incompetence. That is no way to run an organisation, and Arts Council England should be ashamed of the way it went about it all.

It is significant that the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), went public on social media, saying that the way Arts Council England has carried out her intended policy of levelling up arts funding was not as she intended, and has the effect of undermining it. That is the view of the former Secretary of State, who ought to know because it was her policy. The ineptitude of Arts Council England has undermined and discredited the Government’s policy intention, which the Minister and I could probably quite happily sign up to in principle. That is another reason why the Minister ought not to simply say, “I can stand back from this,” because the Government’s own policy is being failed by an arm’s length body. That is really important, which is why we need a proper strategy.

We need a proper strategy for opera. Opera is a major part of the British music scene. Some people think it is a bit of a foreign thing, rather like John Gay’s “The Beggar’s Opera” in the 18th century and Handel. It is not. It is fundamental.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On the point about having a strategy and some sort of strategic thinking, one of Arts Council England’s decisions was to cut funding to the touring side of the Welsh National Opera, which tours extensively in England, including to places such as Liverpool, Birmingham, Southampton, Oxford and so on. On the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, we found out that Arts Council England had not even talked to the Arts Council of Wales about that decision before making the cut, which obviously puts that opera company under threat. The net result, along with the Glyndebourne cut, is that there is no opera in Liverpool at all. What has that got to do with levelling up?

[Sir Robert Neill]

The hon. Gentleman’s point encapsulates why I think the former Secretary of State was right to say what she said: the decision absolutely negates the Government’s own policy. As the hon. Gentleman said, the result of the way Arts Council England has handled this issue is that there is now no opera in Liverpool, because the WNO cancelled its tour. Glyndebourne has cancelled its touring as well—that was touring in the regions of the UK. The WNO toured across the north-west, parts of the west of England, Bristol, Southampton and so on. All those places will now have no opera—not thanks to the policy decisions, but thanks to the way they have been handled and implemented by Arts Council England.

Ministers should not allow the situation to stand, and the same applies to other elements of the arts sector. There is no strategy that informs the approach to prose theatre, to concerts or to museums and galleries. Nowhere is there a fully-fledged strategy, and we certainly ought to have one for opera. In that case, we are talking about £50 million of public money simply going to the opera companies. Think how much more is going to other sectors as well—but no strategy!

When one tries to find the audit trail for this decision, the board minutes that are published are perfunctory in the extreme. None of the board papers is published, and there are considerable redactions to what is published. That is not a level of accountability or transparency that would be accepted in any local authority in this country, and it should not be accepted in a public body such as Arts Council England. It is letting the public down, and it is letting the Government, as the overseeing body, down as well. That is why there is another cause for intervention.

Finally, because I know others want to speak, we need to look at the lack of an economic analysis.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Member is making a vital point about the economic impact. These cuts will impact organisations not in receipt of Arts Council funding that rely on smaller grants. However, organisations that have now come out of the NPO portfolio will also be drawing on that funding, such as the Omnibus theatre in my constituency and the White Deer theatre in Kennington. Should the Government not recognise the importance that these smaller independent organisations, working with the big national organisations, bring to our local economies in terms of jobs, employment, training and getting our young people involved in the arts sector?

[Sir Robert Neill]

It is certainly right that the arts offer real economic opportunity for many young people, and some of those smaller organisations are the breeding ground from which people come. That is true of ENO itself. Many international stars started at the English National Opera, and that is also true of smaller organisations. That reinforces the point I was making: there is not a strategy for any of that. The Arts Council does not appear to have a strategy for anything.

It seems that the funding decisions in this round were to meet a financial envelope. Fine—let us have a proper discussion then with the Department about how we produce a strategy to meet that financial envelope. But none of that was done. That is why we need a much more strategic approach; this is a serious matter.

Looking at the overall potential economic risk, the 2020 report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research found that in a single year—2018; that is the latest we have—the arts and culture industry directly generated £28.3 billion in turnover, £13.5 billion in gross value added, 190,000 full-time equivalent jobs and £7.3 billion in employee compensation in wages and fees: in other words, into the economy. This is big business; for the UK, this is big business that we excel in and which drags in people to visit us. Also, it enables people throughout the UK to have their lives enriched.

What I do not want to see as part of a levelling-up strategy is a cut-down English National Opera or equivalent doing a reduced orchestration, reduced cast and no-proper-chorus version of one of the great operas, be it “Carmen”, “La Traviata” or “Tosca”, in a shed somewhere outside one of our major cities. That is short-changing the people in regional England. They are entitled to see a proper performance like those we get from WNO and the Glyndebourne tour and which ENO would happily do.

ENO has always made it clear that it is more than willing to do more work outside London. Funnily enough, it was planning to do a performance in Liverpool, of all places, before the covid panic, and none of that seems to have been taken into account by Arts Council England. It is short-changing people in the regional parts of England to suggest that they should get a second-rate version of that which is available in London. No wonder the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire, was so angry at the way her policy had been misinterpreted—all the more reason for Ministers to intervene.

Let us look at ENO as an example of the economic benefit that one company can bring. It produces £1.75 for every £1 of spend—it actually brings money into the economy with all the knock-on expenditure that comes from people going to the theatre, and that is true across most of the theatrical world. To put all that at risk without a proper strategic basis seems ridiculous. The loss of touring by Glyndebourne and WNO means that some 23,000 fewer people will have the chance to see high-quality opera in this country than before. That is a funny type of levelling up.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

In addition to the performances, does my hon. Friend agree that it is a betrayal of all those who helped Vernon and Hazel Ellis restore the Coliseum from 2000 to 2004, having bought the freehold and made it into the largest and best theatre in London again? What did Arts Council England think would happen to that building, which has been funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund, the National Lottery, English Heritage and the like?

[Sir Robert Neill]

It may demonstrate the lack of thought in the Arts Council England process. It apparently wanted English National Opera, although no longer based in London, to still run the Coliseum as a commercial venue—a taxpayer subsidised version competing against west end theatre. That does not seem either competent or terribly Conservative, for that matter; it certainly is not a good use of public money.

At the same time, Arts Council England wanted English National Opera to relocate to The Factory in Manchester, a venue that was not built to take unamplified singing—no one had bothered to check. Singing there has to be on a mike. Basic due diligence might have found that one out. The Factory, which, I am told, has been a pet project of some of the senior management of Arts Council England in the past, is a venue that does not have a set of users. It is £100 million over budget. I do not think that forcing a company that has been well established for 100 years or so in London to fill what has become an Arts Council England white elephant was necessarily a very good idea—particularly because Opera North, which performs in Manchester, was not even told. If it had been, it could have said what the audience figures were and probably told Arts Council England that opera cannot be done in The Factory anyway. It is the lack of basic competence, strategic thought and good management that is terrifying in all this. That is why there is a compelling ground for intervention.

[Rehman Chishti]

rose—

[Sir Robert Neill]

I will take one more intervention and then let others speak.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend mentions the forced collaboration between one organisation and another. That is a quick fix. He talks about opera, but before we get to staging opera we need to ensure that our young people have the right music skills. The Arts Council at the moment is carrying out a consultation on the national plan for music education. It has said that all hubs will cover multiple local authority areas. It has subsequently said that this will be achieved

“via prescribing geographic delivery areas for Music Hubs”.

In Medway we have outstanding music provision in schools. Our neighbours in Kent do not have quite the same standards, but under those proposals one area will be forced in with the other. Surely forcing a merger of an outstanding provision area with another cannot be the right way forward—it will weaken the provision in small organisations such as those in Medway.

[Sir Robert Neill]

It sounds as if Arts Council England has fallen into bureaucratic speak. What would that mean to any normal person or sensible institution? It defeats me. There is a complete lack of understanding of what happens on the ground, and a complete lack of engagement with the institutions and their audiences—that is the great error in all this.

I do not have time to quote it all, but the playwright Dennis Kelly wrote a very powerful letter to me; it can be googled and found on social media. It was about the impacts on prose theatre—in particular, the Hampstead Theatre and others. There is a lack of appreciation of the impacts on audiences, and an unwillingness to engage with them. The fact is that people travel to many of those London venues from all around the home counties; it is not purely a London thing in any event.

Lest I be tempted to go on indefinitely, I should say that I have set out the case as to why the whole approach to this funding round has been seriously flawed. Egregious individual decisions have been made. Some of those have been rowed back on to some extent, and I welcome that—I am always happy if Arts Council England or others are prepared to listen and to look at evidence. But it needs to be much more comprehensive and to do it in a much more transparent and strategic fashion.

I will quote the former Secretary of State again. She said that when she arrived at DCMS, she was not a great fan of opera—I had a conversation with her about that —but she went. I urge all Ministers who come into the Department to go to opera, ballet, theatre, concerts and to look at some of the galleries and museums that they are responsible for. They should see that as an experience in itself. My right hon. Friend became a total convert; she said, in relation to ENO and the Royal Opera House:

“They have been the front runners in levelling up for a very long time. They leave many in other sectors of the performing arts in the shade in terms of how much they give back and how they try desperately via a number of measures to make opera accessible to all.”

That is exactly what ENO has been doing.

Then there are the insulting comments of the director of music at Arts Council England, who said, “We don’t believe there is any growing audience for grand opera”—a rather bizarre term to use. Anyone who knows anything about opera will know that is a five-act French production by Meyerbeer from about 1860; we do not talk in terms of grand opera any more. I think what she meant was full-scale opera, with a proper orchestra and chorus. How anyone can say that when theatres have been locked down because of covid for many years defeats me. Freedom of information requests have not evidenced any robust statistical basis for that assumption, which is another reason to go back and have a proper strategy.

I hope all that tells the Minister that something has gone badly wrong in this funding round. We cannot just say that Arts Council England is an arm’s length body; we need to do something before serious and lasting harm is done to critical parts of our cultural and artistic heritage.

14:55

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on securing this debate. I back absolutely every word he said, and I join him in urging Arts Council England to rethink this funding round, which has no strategy, has had no consultation, is thoroughly destructive, and importantly makes the crucial art form of opera more elitist, rather than less.

As a result of losing a third of its funding, Welsh National Opera has cancelled its 2023 tour to Liverpool. That is more elitist, not less. ENO’s core mission is to make opera accessible, bringing the art form to younger and more diverse audiences. The threat to ENO makes it harder to do that work. Because the Britten Sinfonia has lost its annual grant of £500,000, it will not be able to do its education and outreach work in the east of England. Because Glyndebourne has had its grant cut by 50%, it has announced that it will not be able to tour in 2023. When funding is reduced for opera, it is made more exclusive, not less. Public funding is the key way to open up opera to all. The funding cuts make opera more for the elites, not less.

One further consequence of Arts Council England’s decision, which I am sure is unintentional, is the effect on regional theatres, which I know my hon. Friends will mention. Peter Wilson, who ran the Norwich Theatre Royal, wrote a letter to Nicholas Serota and Darren Henley at Arts Council England, which said that there are

“people who stay loyal to their local theatres, providing the bedrock of serious support because of the regular appearance of challenging first class productions provided by Glyndebourne and WNO…Without them, NTR could not have flourished…And without their support theatres’ Friends lists, their ability to raise refurbishment and restoration funds, and their reputations will diminish. Theatres need high quality mixed programming; first class opera is a crucial part of the mix...Once started, a downward spiral in audiences is inevitable. You cannot possibly want that.”

What he is saying is that the decisions about these opera companies will make unviable and change vital regional theatres.

Peter Wilson continues:

“Glyndebourne, WNO and ENO have high cultural ambitions that deserve to be shared as widely as possible. To emasculate them—to destroy existing ‘skills, knowledge and networks’ so wantonly…will not just make those ambitions unavailable in the near future; it will probably ensure that they will never again be part of the national cultural fabric of which I have been so proud for 50 years.”

Does the Minister know whether Arts Council England considered the effect on regional theatres of what they are doing to these opera companies? Did it even consult regional theatres, which are dealing with the consequences of all this?

This is a very well attended debate, with people from different regions and parties. None of us is whipped to be here. None of us has not got other things to do. All the Members sitting here are those who are committed to the arts. If I was Arts Council England looking at this, I would recognise that I had gone seriously wrong. If the Members who are the backbone of championing public policy on the arts are in Westminster Hall complaining about the Arts Council, it should recognise that it has got things wrong and think again. To say from behind its hands, “Well, we’ve been told by wicked Secretaries of State and DCMS that we have to do this”, is something that I do not accept for one moment. The Arts Council is an independent body, for goodness’ sake—the key is in the name, “independent”—and if people take on responsibility for an independent body, they have a duty to that body to act independently. If they are told what to do by somebody whose business it is not, they should tell them to shove off, or threaten to resign. That is the way it is supposed to be.

The Arts Council has to recognise the scale of the problem. However, we are a forgiving group of people, because we love the arts, and therefore if the Arts Council sees sense, we will not complain about it; we will congratulate it. Really, it should read the writing on the wall. As Peter Wilson writes to Nick Serota and Darren Henley,

“I’ve bumped into you both over 25 years…It’s plain that your lives and careers have been dedicated to making the best art available as widely as possible throughout the UK.”

I say to both of them, “Keep faith with that. Change your mind. We all believe in redemption; it is not too late.”

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. Seven Members want to speak. I have to start the wind-ups in 37 minutes’ time—very roughly, that is about five minutes each. I will not impose a time limit, but I trust people will bear that in mind.

15:01

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Bone, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on securing this important debate. I will start by talking about the very difficult period during which I was culture Minister in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. It was throughout the whole covid period, and I did not get out much; I did not get to go to many operas, ballets or performances, but I did get to work very closely with the Arts Council.

I have to start by paying tribute to the Arts Council and to the leadership of Darren Henley and Nick Serota, who worked incredibly hard with the brilliant team at DCMS, led by Emma Squire, throughout the covid period. They were responsible for allocating a significant share of the £2 billion culture recovery fund. The recovery fund board was appointed swiftly, and ensured that vast sums of money were allocated very fairly and effectively at enormous pace and scale, which meant the difference between survival and closure for some of our most vital cultural institutions. Thanks to their remarkable diligence and deep understanding of the arts and culture ecosystem across the country, we avoided many of the issues that some other parts of Government faced when they were trying to dish out vast sums of cash.

As the responsible Minister, I can tell Members that once the money starts rolling out, we really do gird our loins about the potential negative media stories that might come down the track, but they did not come. There were some great attempts from some quarters of the media to excite people about some of our funding decisions—the wonderful drag queen Le Gateau Chocolat was exceptionally grateful for her slice of the cake—but on the whole, there was very little error in a massive piece of work that was done at pace and scale. The work of the Arts Council was a bright light during an otherwise very dark period, and I have lost count of the number of institutions up and down the country that have told me they felt they were saved by the culture recovery fund.

I do not envy the Arts Council its job. Trying to allocate limited funds is always a challenge, now more than ever, in desperate economic times and against the backdrop of a Government who are passionate about the potential of arts and culture to drive economic prosperity and levelling up to all corners of the country. Over the next few years, Arts Council England will invest £446 million per year in 990 organisations—the largest national portfolio ever, reaching more organisations than ever before. It was the most over-subscribed round ever, with 1,723 applications; if all of those applications had been successful, the investment would have been over £2 billion.

Among the 990 successful applications were 276 new organisations. One of those is the Hampshire Cultural Trust, which will now receive £500,000 a year. It is the first time that it has been a national portfolio organisation, and I see what a tangible impact it has on my Gosport constituency, which is an area with deep pockets of deprivation and has been long underfunded by successive Governments.

Our heritage is one of our secret weapons, but, up until now, we have not been able to harness its potential to drive investment, build communities, create opportunities and promote excellence. The newly reopened museum and gallery has been reimagined as a cultural hub, breathing new life into our high streets. The money will allow them to animate already outstanding heritage spaces and organise community-based festivals and events. It is making a difference on the ground and it will continue to do so.

The UK’s cultural sector is among the best in the world: I would say that it is the best. It represents 12% of our service exports, and its potential for our soft power is so often undervalued and underestimated. We have a huge responsibility. The Arts Council has a huge responsibility to ensure that we continue to nurture and grow it.

Culture has the power to drive forward regional economies, build communities and improve health and wellbeing. Arts Council funding has historically been focused on London and we need to ensure that culture is thriving in every pocket of England, but we will not level up the rest of the country by levelling down London. We need to harness the potential of the great cultural powerhouses of London. We must spread their tentacles and sprinkle a bit of their magic across the country in the same way as some of our museums and galleries have driven footfall.

Recently, Dippy the dinosaur went on a tour. It went to the Tank Museum in Bovington. It popped up in the nave of Norwich Cathedral, reaching a whole new audience and inspiring a new generation. The ENO has done exactly the same thing with ENO Breathe, which is its wonderful, game-changing response to covid. It is operating in 85 trusts across the country, including my own. There were some bizarre and ill-judged decisions in this funding round and I think we can all agree that the decision to both relocate the ENO and cut its funding was an ill-judged one. I am pleased that there has now been some movement on that, but there is more to do to secure its future.

[Andy Slaughter]

I entirely agree with what the hon. Lady has said about the ENO, but it is a one-year reprieve. After that, what it pointedly said is that it wants to

“continue to make incredible opera available for everyone, in English, with hugely subsidised tickets, completely free for Under 21s and with 10% of all seats available for £10”.

It is working in schools and hospitals as well. That will be gone in a year’s time and, over the next three years, it will lose over 400,000 people seeing opera in that way. Surely that cannot be right.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

That is absolutely the point. The ENO not only plays a huge role in the cultural status of London around the world, but the work that it has done to attract a whole new audience and to make opera accessible to all is nothing short of remarkable. I was lucky enough to attend what they call a “relaxed performance” of “It’s a Wonderful Life” just before Christmas. The place was packed with children, people with disabilities and neurodiverse people. It was just incredible to see opera being accessible to so many and building the audiences of the future.

I agree with the idea of devolving money outside of the capital, but we cannot do it by destroying some of the great cultural institutions that do so much and put us on the map. We must avoid these token gestures. We must also be aware of the regional ecosystems that are already well developed outside London before we start transplanting existing organisations out of London.

The Arts Council was born out of world war two. Here we are again, with the global aftermath of covid and a war, once again, on the edge of Europe. The Arts Council has, once again, a unique opportunity to support the innovation, creativity and resilience that make our cultural industries our British superpower. I hope that we can all work together with them to enable them to harness that opportunity.

15:09

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on securing this important debate. I absolutely echo his comments about access for all to the best of the arts. I am a passionate champion of arts in Luton and across the country. Participation in cultural activity develops social capital, and enables local people to lead happy, healthy and prosperous lives.

Financial security has rarely been more important for our arts and cultural organisations, having weathered the challenges of the covid pandemic and a decade of funding cuts to the arts. Cultural industries in the UK are a success story: in 2021, the gross value added by the creative industries was £104 billion.

The role of the Arts Council is very important and its funding decisions are critical to encouraging creativity across the country and in all our communities. In Luton, we have a rich and thriving arts and culture sector. It enriches our town’s cultural diversity, encourages investment and supports social mobility and inclusion. Arts culture and creativity are central to the Luton 2020-2040 vision for a place where everyone can thrive across all our communities, and the Arts Council plays a critical role in that.

Last year, brilliant Luton organisations, Wardown House Museum and Gallery, Luton Carnival Arts Development Trust, Tangled Feet theatre and Music24 community music group, each received funding as national portfolio organisations. Revoluton Arts is an excellent example of the impact of the Arts Council creative people and places funding in Luton. It is a people-powered project that cultivates grassroots creativity in Luton and puts on high-quality creative events, particularly focused on increasing the participation of diverse communities.

We do not have a large professional theatre or venue in Luton to attract symphony orchestras, large scale theatrical work or indeed opera, but we have an excellent music service team and a music hub, and brilliant schools that want their children to experience the best cultural, artistic and musical activities available. That is the reason I was disturbed by the original Arts Council decision.

Arts Council funding of English National Opera helped to bring opportunities to our young people and led to a strong partnership between ENO and Luton music hub. The partnership created excellent opportunities for Luton’s young people. English National Opera brought its opera squad to Lea Manor High School, albeit in in Luton North, and there have been trips from Luton to the London Coliseum, both back-stage and to the opera. The partnership had expanded post-pandemic with the Finish This… programme in which more than 500 Luton children from key stage 2 became English National Opera composers for a term, and created their own musical colour worlds in response to ENO’s specially commissioned piece, “Blue, Red, Yellow…”, by Omar Shahryar.

The list of excellent work goes on and on, but the fact is that the music hub’s partnership with English National Opera brought opportunities to young people in Luton that simply would not have been achieved otherwise. It is proof that the impact of English National Opera is beyond the borders of London. It is showing diverse, working class, young people in Luton that opera singers look like them and the sky is the limit on their aspiration, but the Arts Council’s decision cuts off that aspiration.

I welcome the announcement yesterday that Arts Council England agreed that it will invest £11 million in ENO in 2023-24, but because opera plans significantly further ahead, a 12-month commitment is very short term. Last November, the Arts Council said it would ringfence £17 million for three years of transitional funding. If we take the funding for year one, can we assume that leaves about £2.7 million a year for the following two years, compared to the Arts Council’s previous annual funding of £12.8 million?

A funding cut of that size is shocking because English National Opera has exceeded many of the success criteria set by the Arts Council in terms of young audience growth, increased diversity and representation, the ability to reshape opera and maintenance of financial stability. The cut is accompanied by the recommendation that the organisation relocates from London to Manchester by 2026. I agree with others that does not make strategic sense, given that Opera North already has a presence in Manchester. The Arts Council needs to provide an opera strategy so we can see its intent. Further discussions with the Arts Council and English National Opera must lead to a fair funding settlement and ensure that ENO can continue to deliver the very best that it has to offer.

15:14

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on securing this important debate. He was right to remind us that when the Arts Council was established, its principal role was to promote art for art’s sake and to promote excellence, and through doing so to give people the opportunity to experience excellence in the whole range of arts, from figurative and decorative to performing arts, and provide people with the opportunity to develop their talents. That should be something that is accessible to the whole country, and that is why the Arts Council was created. It is also perfectly legitimate that the Arts Council, which is in receipt of a large amount of public money, should be challenged and scrutinised over how it allocates those funds and the strategies that it deploys.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend may be aware that two leading arts commentators have published a pamphlet calling for the Arts Council to be abolished. Their reason was that it has been taken over by “highly-politicised staff” whose left-wing “woke agenda” is generally failing to support the arts. That came on the back of a case last year in which £3 million of taxpayers’ money was provided to a company that published posters stating that “straight white men” should “pass the power”. Does my hon. Friend agree that decisions such as this will raise legitimate questions among the general public about the level of oversight of some of these Arts Council decisions?

[Damian Collins]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There should be a clear strategy for allocated funds. It is right that the Arts Council is an arm’s length body and free to make decisions based on artistic merit that some people will agree with and others will not.

However, there is a clear strategy for how that benefits the whole nation, not parts of it. London receives a large amount of money because we have larger national institutions here. They demonstrate the benefit that they bring to the whole country, be that through touring exhibitions and performances or through the other cultural institutions around the country operated by the Tate, the V&A and so on.

It is important that there is a clear strategy and the Arts Council is held to account for it, because anyone who is in receipt of public money should be held to account. It is right that the funding strategy works for the national portfolio organisations on a three-year settlement, because organisations need to be able to plan for the future. While we welcome the additional year’s money that has been granted to the ENO for the coming year—it means, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has said, that the 2023-24 season can go ahead—it gives no certainty beyond that and does not enable the ENO to make any further investment decisions. Even if the Arts Council had said, “We want the ENO to try to increase revenue from other sources,” that is not a compelling bid to take forward when the public money that the ENO relies on is no longer guaranteed. Who would match fund against public money that might not be there in just over a year’s time?

There needs to be a degree of certainty. There will always be more demands on the Arts Council than it can fulfil, and there will always be people it has to let down, but that is why having a clear strategy, plan and understanding with the organisations that it funds is so important. It cannot be right to take a major national institution such as the ENO that has been funded in a certain way for many years and pull the rug out from under it with very little notice; I understand that the ENO had 24 hours’ notice of the decision.

It would be perfectly legitimate for the Arts Council to say, “We must review the way opera is funded, and we want a strategy for that. We might want to look at how other revenue can support the opera, but we are going to do that during a transition period. What we are not going to do is create a cliff edge whereby the required funding is not there.” As hon. Members have said, not only has the decision had a direct impact on the ENO as an organisation, but the cuts have had a knock-on impact on arts and opera in the regions, which the Arts Council is there to support. That is the best evidence of the lack of a clear strategy. The Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), raised that in his intervention.

The Coliseum is subsidised by the ENO to the tune of about £2 million a year. If the ENO cannot support the Coliseum as a building, who else will go into it? Who will pay those costs? Will we be left in the invidious position of using public money that should go into supporting performance arts to subsidise a building that nobody can use? That, again, demonstrates the lack of clear strategy. My constituency has organisations that benefit from national portfolio funding, not least Creative Folkestone. Less than 20% of its funding comes from the Arts Council; it has a diverse form of income, and that is right, but the extra money that it gets from the Arts Council enables it to do more, to do better things and plan for the future.

At the end of this sorry saga, we need to get to a position where the ENO can plan for the future and invest in the future. If that is against a strategy to do more in the regions and more to reach diverse audiences, it needs a fair funding settlement to enable it to develop that strategy. We must recognise, too, that with major cultural institutions such as the ENO, what we see on the stage is, in some ways, the icing on the cake. There is a long tail of people who rely on that institution being there—the people who will develop their talents and may go on to work in other companies, the regional companies and tours that will be supported by that, and the people who are involved in costume design and set design—and a great variety of projects that are there to support people. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) mentioned the fantastic Breathe project that the ENO ran. All those things are lost if the ENO has no secure future. While yesterday’s announcement is welcome, there has to be a longer-term plan, otherwise we will simply be back in this position in a few months’ time.

15:20

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I echo many of the comments that have been made. I thank the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill)—

[Sir Robert Neill]

Just honourable.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank the noble Gentleman, or whatever he is, for securing the debate. I also thank the former arts Minister, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). She appeared many times before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and she was a very refreshing Minister to have in front of us. I thank her for the candid and supportive way in which she carried out her duties as a Minister and for the work she did during covid to keep many cultural institutions going. I also thank my hon. Friends, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who has campaigned assiduously on this issue.

I mentioned the Welsh National Opera earlier, because when this debate about Arts Council England started, it focused—understandably, perhaps—on the decisions around the English National Opera, but in some ways, what was done around the Welsh National Opera was even more invidious, or at least as invidious, because it signalled that this was not a rational, strategic decision-making process by Arts Council England. Like the hon. Member for Gosport, I would normally express support and admiration for the way that Arts Council England goes about things. However, rather than being a strategic, well-thought-through plan for the arts, it resembled more an emotional spasm of some sort, as a result of wanting to do something very quickly to meet the perceived needs of the Secretary of State at the time, the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries). We are now told by the former Secretary of State, Ministers and Government Members that that was not what the Secretary of State wanted all along, which makes the whole affair all the more strange.

One thing that is perhaps good about this whole incident is that it gives us an opportunity to highlight the fact that the Welsh National Opera is an opera company for Wales and England, despite its name. It is value for money because we have a proper national opera company with an international reputation that can serve both England and Wales, including, when it goes on tour, the parts of England that are not often well served by other cultural institutions. That is an integrated system for opera across England and Wales.

Arts Council England decided to cut a third of the funding that it provides to the Welsh National Opera for its touring work in England. That includes many different parts of England, such as Liverpool; the west midlands, which is the part of Arts Council England that looks after the Welsh National Opera in terms of its administration; the west of England, in places such as Bristol; and Southampton, Oxford and elsewhere. It is right that these touring opera companies form an essential part of our regional theatres right across the country.

When Arts Council England appeared before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I was interested to know what its decision-making process was, so I asked Darren Henley whether he had consulted the Arts Council of Wales prior to the decision being taken to cut the funding to the Welsh National Opera. He waffled for a bit, and I had to interrupt him to get him to answer the question, at which point he said:

“They were aware just before the announcement was made, but we didn’t consult them in the announcement”.

I put it to him and to Members here today that it is a dereliction of duty for a decision that has profound implications—as we know, it has resulted in Liverpool being denied any opera whatsoever—to be taken in that haphazard way.

There are no SNP Members here, so I think we are all Unionists in this room. The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) was born in Newport, and he understands the importance of the Union. Arts Council England did not consult the Arts Council of Wales on a decision that has a profound implication for the future of that opera company and the whole system of opera around the country, and that undermines the whole so-called levelling-up agenda that we were told this decision making was about.

I profoundly believe that creativity is a good thing in and of itself. I profoundly believe that this country’s greatest strength, or certainly one of its greatest, is its creative industries, and that we are one of the few countries in the world that is a net exporter. Our creative industries are a huge earner for our country and culturally enrich us all. Quite frankly, as a white, heterosexual male from a working-class background, I am sick of people speaking on my behalf, and talking about wokeism and all the rest of it. The arts and culture are profoundly important to enriching our lives, and we should all stand up for them, whatever our backgrounds.

Let us hope that this was just an emotional spasm. I say to Arts Council England: please, get your act together and start thinking about these things. The arm’s length principle is important, but it does not mean being so arm’s length as to not even consult the Arts Council of Wales. That is not what the arm’s length principle is about, so Arts Council England should get its act back together, and let us return to some sense around this issue.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Before I call Jonathan Gullis, let me say that although this is such an important debate, I cannot extend the time, so we are now on something more like four minutes for each Back Bencher.

15:26

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on securing this important debate. Culture is so important. I was delighted to spend time before the Christmas break at Springhead Primary School in Talke Pits, which worked closely with the Royal Shakespeare Company and the New Vic Theatre to stage a First Encounters production of Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night”. Seeing kids as young as reception sat engrossed throughout that play, having learned about it in advance, was very special indeed. Mr Anderson, the headteacher, is doing a fine job.

My mother always told me that I should learn to read the room, but perhaps I am about to go against that—although I am sure that will not shock many Members here. I want to congratulate Arts Council England on its investment in the great city of Stoke-on-Trent. This £6.8 million investment, from 2023 to 2026, has taken us from having one national portfolio organisation—the New Vic, which is actually in neighbouring Newcastle-under-Lyme—to now having eight such organisations. They include the fantastic Portland Inn Project, based in Stoke-on-Trent North, which will have a profoundly positive impact.

Because of that investment, Stoke-on-Trent City Council, under its leader Councillor Abi Brown and Councillor Lorraine Beardmore, the relevant cabinet member, has been working tirelessly to look at how we can improve that partnership working further. Arts Council England has made Stoke-on-Trent a priority place and become a key member of the Stoke-on-Trent creative city partnership, which shows how the relationship continues to evolve. Indeed, it seems to have got the message that levelling up means making sure that places such as Stoke-on-Trent can celebrate their culture, history and heritage. We note that the levelling-up White Paper contained a Government promise that Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester would receive a special focus, to make the most of our cities’ industrial heritage.

The city has responded to that with a clear vision and strategy to establish an international ceramics centre, which will tie together world-class collections, celebrate the growth of contemporary craft ceramics and expand on our fantastic advanced ceramics sector. At the heart of that vision is a plan for our main museum, the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery, based in Hanley, working with Staffordshire and Keele Universities, as well as Stoke Creates, to secure a £5 million investment from the Arts Council’s cultural development fund to create new spaces through a new research centre and to redesign the layout of the fantastic ceramics that we have to display. That work will build on the city council’s £4.7 million Spitfire Gallery development, which houses the city’s Mk XVI Spitfire. Obviously, the Spitfire was designed in Butt Lane—where I am proud to live as a resident—by Reginald J. Mitchell, a great local hero, without whose efforts we would not have won the battle of Britain. The plan also builds on the £1.5 million relocation of the archive service from Hanley library.

We know that the decision is due in March. I am sure that Arts Council England is listening, and I am sure that the Minister will want to see Stoke-on-Trent get some more, because he has learned that once we get a taste of funding, we always want more. I look forward to more coming our way in Stoke-on-Trent. The clear notice from me is that a promise has been made and must now be delivered. We need major investment to continue to deliver new jobs and more high-skilled opportunities for people who want to study, understand and come to visit our great city, and to enable Stokies to be at the cultural heart of our great country.

15:29

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on securing this debate. I recognise all the things that he referred to in his opening remarks—a lack of transparency, accountability and engagement with the sector—in a decision that was reached on a treasured regional theatre in my constituency, the Watermill Theatre. It was truly a bolt from the blue for it to learn that there has been a 100% cut in its funding for the next three years.

One thing that has been frustrating in the process since then is the fact that the Arts Council did not really substantiate its decision with reasons, and it was so reluctant to produce written reasons when we invited it to do so. I had to remind the council that it is a public body and susceptible to judicial review. When the decision came, it was impossible to discern why the Watermill did not meet the relevant criteria. It had met them all in every previous round of funding and was not alerted to the fact that any criteria had changed. The Arts Council was unable to explain why, if it was a regional decision based on levelling up, the other theatre in Newbury, which we also love, was successful when the Watermill was not. Eliciting the final decision was like getting blood out of a stone, and when it came it simply set out generalities, such as the assertion that the Watermill lacked ambition.

The Watermill is an 18th-century watermill that has been converted into a theatre. I cannot improve on the description written in The Mail on Sunday, which said:

“What a location! Forget the glitz of the West End: try walking up a country lane, past waddling ducks, to this lovely little theatre in a converted mill.”

Its aesthetic beauty as a venue is absolutely treasured by our community, but we also treasure the quality and diversity of its productions. It is not just a standard repertory theatre that takes shows on tour: it produces its own work and pumps it around the country. It most recent touring production of “Spike” went from the Watermill to Blackpool, Glasgow, Cardiff and Darlington. It is also an artery theatre through which West End productions come and other productions flow on to international destinations, including Broadway.

The theatre takes its commitment to diversity and improving access seriously. It is in the heart of a tiny village, so in 2022 it did a rural tour. “Camp Albion” took its productions to villages, which are often completely neglected in the consumption of the arts. Overall, the theatre reaches 20,000 people annually through its various community engagement programmes, including children with autism, deafness and many other special needs. It has a deep commitment to the Arts Council’s outcomes, which the council even acknowledged in its decision letter.

We have been confronted with a deeply disappointing decision. We have found it incredibly difficult to know what mandate the Arts Council was working to, or why. I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that this was capricious decision making, which undermines the status of the Arts Council as a guarantor of our national arts output. If the council is watching, I respectfully request that it reverse its decision because it has devastating consequences for the future of the Watermill Theatre in Newbury.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I will call the Father of the House next; I am grateful to him for being willing to wait until the end.

15:33

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

That is because I am going to go back in time and it might bore other people, Mr Bone. The first chairman of the Arts Council I met was Sir Ernest Pooley, who succeeded John Maynard Keynes two years after I was born. Given that Arts Council England is for the encouragement of music and the arts, Pooley and Keynes would have been delighted at the competence with which it took our cultural institutions through the pandemic. The three rounds of emergency funding were executed in a way that nobody criticised. It was quite remarkable, and very effective.

The most recent Arts Council England report available on its website is from 2020-21. The chairman, Sir Nicholas Serota, talks about the three outcomes and the four investment principles, none of which give any indication that the council might have conceived cutting off the ENO and the Coliseum at the knees. Tributes to those who have cared for, led and participated in the ENO and the Coliseum should be put on record. I will say again that Hazel and Vernon Ellis, together with the major public funders and private individuals and trusts, deserve to be recognised. One of those funders was the National Lottery through Arts Council England. I do not know whether those taking the decision that was announced recently were aware of the Arts Council England funding for the Coliseum and its restoration, so that Sir Oswald Stoll’s Frank Matcham theatre could be restored on the anniversary of its first opening.

I think mistakes were made. I do not how much of it was to do with the Government, how much of it was to do with Arts Council England, and how much of it was to do with time pressures. The fact is that what was done clearly would not work and was not right, and it seems to me that the principle, both for Arts Council England and for the Government, is to say, “Is it necessary, is it right and will it work?” I will leave it to the Minister to explain not what has gone wrong but how he will put things right. I suggest that, afterwards, he writes to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, saying that the Worthing Borough Council bid for the connected cultural mile from the railway station to the lido, going past the museum, should be approved.

15:35

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I declare that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on classical music. It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) for securing the debate and for the way he opened it, and all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to it.

I start by congratulating colleagues across both Houses and the wider arts sector on achieving the apparent 12-month reprieve announced yesterday for the funding of the English National Opera. It does not settle all the questions raised about the damage done by the decision, but I am pleased that there can at least be a longer-term conversation about the ENO’s future, which is right. The ENO has worked hard to increase access to opera, bringing it to younger and more diverse audiences. It has delivered innovative education and health projects throughout the country, and it is right that this is finally being recognised. However, the back and forth of the decision has caused acute anxiety among the ENO’s 300 full-time employees and the 600 freelancers whose job security was put at risk. The screeching U-turn is further indication of the total lack of strategic planning involved in the national portfolio organisation funding decisions that we have been debating.

First, I want to reflect on the arm’s length principle of arts funding, which we have heard about in the debate. At the core of the recent dispute about arts funding is the issue of who makes decisions about arts funding and what the criteria for those decisions are. When the answers to those questions are unclear, there will always be discontent and frustration about how the investment of taxpayers’ money is being made.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point: there is a lack of transparency. I am very lucky that the two main theatres in my constituency, the Bush and the Lyric, have maintained their grants—in one case, it has slightly increased—but every organisation was on tenterhooks waiting for the announcements, and they will be next time as well, because they have no idea on what basis Arts Council England makes a decision. Other theatres in London, such as the Donmar Warehouse, have lost 100% of their funding. What is the rationale behind this?

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed. It is important to focus on that principle. The arm’s length principle has been in operation since public subsidy for the arts began in the aftermath of the second world war. At the inception of the original Arts Council, Keynes wrote that:

“It should be a permanent body, independent in constitution…but financed by the Treasury”.

However, as we have heard, the former Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), issued a clear instruction to Arts Council England last year and ordered it to move money outside the capital through a reduction in the London budget. Even the places at which the additional investment would be targeted were decided with input from DCMS, with removals and changes to the “Let’s Create” priority places, which had been originally identified in Arts Council England’s 2020 strategy.

As we heard earlier, the former Culture Secretary has now criticised the decisions made by Arts Council England for their “undue political bias”, and accused the leadership of pulling a “stunt” to try to reverse levelling up. We have heard a variety of ways of describing the very strange decision making, but we have to see that it was this directive that led Arts Council England to the decision to make cuts to the English National Opera, the Welsh National Opera, Glyndebourne’s touring and other organisations, such as the Britten Sinfonia, the Oldham Coliseum and the Donmar Warehouse. The comments made show that Ministers and Arts Council England had not thought through the implications of the directive, both on art forms such as opera and on the other arts organisations I mentioned.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way, just for one second, so that I can put on the record my views about the English National Opera?

[Barbara Keeley]

No; I will run out of time.

Through the directive, Ministers and Arts Council England reallocated a shrinking budget for London. I recommend to the Minister an excellent blog post from Border Crossings that can be found on Twitter and makes the point that we cannot level up at the same time as cutting. That is the problem: the aims have become confused. It is this inconsistency and short-sightedness that is so frustrating for so many arts organisations.

The second major issue with the NPO decisions—we have heard much about this in the debate—is the glaring lack of any art form-specific strategy, planning or consultation. Opera is the major victim of this approach. Before the reprieve—the reversal of the ENO decision—overall funding for the sector was down by 11 %. It is reckless and irresponsible to remove £19 million of funding with no strategy in place. The decisions should be based on evidence and audience data, not on a whim.

Under such acute constraints, it is the expense of touring that is often the first activity to be sacrificed, as we are seeing already. As we have heard, Glyndebourne has had the subsidy for its touring budget halved, so has been forced to scrap its entire autumn tour, which would have held performances in Liverpool, Canterbury, Norwich and Milton Keynes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) rightly said, Welsh National Opera has responded to a 35% cut by removing Liverpool from its touring plans. As we have heard, it is estimated that the cuts to those two companies alone will deprive 23,000 people from access to opera throughout the country. In addition to that gap, the consequences for the arts ecosystem will be severe, given that there are already pressures on the workforce and on skills retention.

Jennifer Johnston is a mezzo-soprano who was born in Liverpool. She told me about the impact that the Arts Council funding allocations will have on young students at the Liverpool Philharmonic Youth Choir. These young people in Liverpool come from backgrounds where there is no money for singing lessons, with their fees for the choir paid by bursaries. She said:

“Now that live staged opera isn’t going to come to the city, these young singers won’t have a chance to see any at all. They don’t have funds to travel, and the educational workshops carried out by both Welsh National Opera and Glyndebourne now won’t happen.

It’s a simple equation—inspire a young person by showing them excellence in an artform and demonstrate what they could achieve if given the chance, defeating assumptions of elitism and thoughts of ‘Opera’s for posh people, not for me’.

These young people now won’t have the chance to be exposed to, and be inspired by, live staged opera, and are unlikely to want to train as an opera singer in the future. Arts Council England funding cuts will therefore affect life choices, making a nonsense of the idea of ‘levelling up’.”

I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to those comments. How does his Department intend to ensure that there is support for the next generation of England’s opera singers when there is no coherence to the decisions being made about the sector?

There are other arts organisations that have had their income slashed in this funding round, with little apparent sense in the decisions. We have heard that Britten Sinfonia was entirely cut from the NPO programme, despite being the only orchestra based in the east of England. Many other regional orchestras were funded only at standstill. Meanwhile, the funding settlement for producing theatres is short-sighted and risks having a negative impact on the programming of regional theatres—as we have heard in the debate—as well as compromising the UK’s cultural reputation in the longer term. Sam Mendes, the former chief executive of the Donmar Warehouse, has been predicted that it will “wreak long-lasting havoc” on the industry.

Speaking of the Donmar Warehouse, it received a 100% cut in its Arts Council funding. Its representatives told me that the hit to their budget means they will no longer be able to create work outside London and will have to reduce or cease altogether their excellent CATALYST programme, which supports 13 people a year with paid training to develop the next generation of writers, artists and administrators. Given the flexibility in exit funding that has suddenly been found by Arts Council England for ENO, will the Minister say whether Minister similar flexibility can be found for the Donmar Warehouse? It is really important that Arts Council England is transparent and equitable in its funding processes, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said earlier.

The combination of a top-down approach from DCMS and poor planning have given the impression that the Government’s goal is more about political gimmickry around levelling up than a true rebalancing of power to the regions. It is a fact that 70% of the organisations that are being entirely cut from the programme are based outside London, including the Oldham Coliseum, the Britten Sinfonia and, as highlighted so effectively by the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), the Watermill Theatre. In addition, the lack of consultation, which has been most clearly evidenced by all the reaction to the decision about ENO, speaks of insincerity in making the changes. That risks the very existence of our essential cultural organisations and makes it more difficult to achieve regional parity in arts provision.

Before I move on, I want to make the point that it has rarely been more important to get these decisions right, because having weathered the challenges of the covid pandemic—the Father of the House said that situation was well handled by Arts Council England—and a decade of funding cuts to the arts, organisations now face a perfect storm of other challenges, including increased energy and operating costs and a cost of living squeeze on their audiences.

The U-turn on ENO is an admission that the choices announced in November were not well considered. This situation could have been avoided if there had been proper consultation with the sector, as many contributors to this debate have said. I hope that DCMS will now undertake an internal assessment of the process behind the NPO funding round for 2023 to 2026, so that this chaotic approach is never repeated. It is vital that we now have a transparent and equitable process.

There are still some important decisions to be made to ensure that ENO can continue and so that future decisions are made based on strategy and in consultation with the sector, with a particular focus on supporting the organisations that we have heard about today, such as the Donmar Warehouse, Welsh National Opera, the Glyndebourne tour and the Watermill Theatre. They need to continue their vital work outside London and I hope to hear more from the Minister about what can be done to ensure that.

15:46

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) for securing this debate and other Members for their thoughtful contributions.

I am pleased that a number of debates on these issues have been held—both in this House and in the other place—over the last couple of months; that clearly demonstrates the ongoing interest in our incredible arts and culture. As I have stated on previous occasions, access to high-quality arts and culture needs to be more fairly spread. That is why we asked Arts Council England to ensure that funding is distributed more equally right across the country. As my ministerial colleagues have said in written ministerial statements, the Arts Council has fulfilled these ambitions and we are not apologetic about delivering on our policy commitments.

I will not go over past ground in respect of the investment programme or how it works, because I am keen that we think about the big picture today, but it is important to point out that this funding round will support a record number of organisations—a total of 990. That means we will be able to reach more people in more places than ever before. Every region in England outside London is seeing an increase in funding. For the avoidance of doubt, that includes the south-east: this is not just a north/south matter.

Every region in England, including London, is seeing an increase in the number of organisations that are being funded. Levelling Up for Culture Places, a list of 109 places that have been identified as having had historically low cultural investment and engagement, such as those my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) mentioned, will see investment almost double, with 192 organisations in those areas receiving £130 million over the next three years. When compared with the previous investment programme, that is equivalent to a 95% increase in investment. Many places that were not in the last portfolio—such as Stoke-on-Trent, Bolsover, Mansfield and Blackburn with Darwen—will now become home to funded organisations. I hope this will be transformative for many communities throughout the country.

There were a record number of applications to the 2023-26 investment programme, which is, as many will know, a competitive fund. It is usual that organisations will come in and out of the NPO. To support organisations leaving the portfolio, for the first time ever the Arts Council made available transition funding which, subject to application, allows organisations leaving the portfolio to access 12 months of funding from the point of announcement.

On the ENO specifically, no doubt Members have learned of the announcement that was made yesterday, which was mentioned in the debate. I am very pleased that the Arts Council has agreed to invest £11.46 million of funding in the ENO for the period from April 2023 to March 2024. This is to sustain a programme of work at the ENO’s home, the London Coliseum, and at the same time to help the ENO with planning work associated with considering a new base outside of London by 2026 and the development of a new business model for its future operation.

We will also continue to deliver planned activity in London during the year, including an appropriate level of education and community engagement. We are delighted that this has been negotiated. Both sides have also agreed to work together to reach an agreement by the end of March this year on a further two years of funding to support the future of the organisation, subject to successful application. They are also working together on the future running of the Coliseum, and a future base. Taking note of many of the points that have been raised, I hope that is something that can be arranged as soon as possible.

[Sir Robert Neill]

We all appreciate that there has been progress, and that is welcome, but I hope the Minister will accept that this is not a complete answer. I urge him, when he speaks to the Arts Council, to bear in mind that in opera the programmes need to be planned a minimum of 18 months, and very frequently three to four years, beforehand. Even two years will not be enough to mount a serious programme of work, wherever it is. Flexibility needs to be shown on the timeframes so that we get decent work available in and outside London.

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend has made that point clearly. I know that those discussions are ongoing. I hope we will hear something by the end of March.

ACE’s investment in opera, orchestras and other classical organisations will represent around 80% of all investment in music. Through the ’23 to ’26 investment programme, opera will continue to be well funded, with it remaining at around 40% of overall investment in music. Excluding the funding for the ENO, that is more than £30 million per year for opera alone. Organisations such as English Touring Opera and the Birmingham Opera Company will receive increased funding, and there are many new joiners, such as OperaUpClose and Pegasus Opera Company. The Royal Opera House and Opera North will continue to be funded.

Some Members have set out a view that where an organisation is headquartered is a blunt instrument when it comes to levelling up. My noble Friend the Minister for Arts set out a view on this late last year. He said:

“Touring is important…We do not, in any respect, disparage or undervalue that vital work, but… There is a difference in having an organisation based in your community from just being able to visit it as it passes through your town or city.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 2022; Vol. 826, c. 852.]

That said, the Government will continue to work with the Arts Council to understand all the impacts of its investment in arts and culture, including opera.

We remain committed to supporting the capital. We recognise and appreciate that London is a leading cultural centre, with organisations that do not just benefit the whole country but greatly enhance the UK’s international reputation as a home of world-class arts and culture. That is clearly reflected in the next investment programme: around a third of the investment will be spent in London, equivalent to approximately £143 million per year for the capital. Historically, Arts Council spending per capita in London has always been significantly higher than in the rest of the country, at £21 per capita in London but just £6 per capita in the rest of England.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

If I have a spare place, I could invite the Minister to come to “Carmen” with me in a week-and-a-half’s time at the ENO. Most people there will not be Londoners; people come to London for the show, so I think that those figures are not quite right.

I say to the Arts Council and the ENO, through the Minister, that if they had sat down together they could have worked out a better future. There are six weeks now for the Minister to encourage them to do that. If they do not succeed, he should come back here and there will be a much rougher debate.

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend has obviously missed the other debates, because they were fairly rough, I have to say.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

That was the warm-up!

[Stuart Andrew]

There have been questions about the arm’s length principle. I want to make clear that were any arm’s length body, including the Arts Council, to breach the terms set by the Government, or to be found to be acting unlawfully, we would take the steps necessary to review the matter and determine the appropriate action.

There has been criticism of the board. I do not think it is fair to totally criticise the expertise that we have on many of those boards. They have a great deal of expertise in the performing arts. The board features musicians, concert hall chief executives, a Royal Shakespeare Company governor, a theatre chief executive—I could go on. Those are people who are obviously interested in the arts.

On the process, applicants receive lots of guidance, all of which is set out very clearly. Applicants know the criteria they are applying against and will have received, or be in the process of receiving, feedback on their applications. The Arts Council also runs webinars and is available to support organisations as they make those applications. In addition, there is a complaints process that is published on its website. If anybody has concerns about any process that has taken place, they can follow that. I will happily speak to hon. Members if they want more information.

I believe the arm’s length principle is right, and successive Governments have observed that. That said, no organisation should avoid scrutiny. A number of points have been raised today, particularly around consultation, and I will raise those with the Arts Minister, my noble Friend Lord Parkinson.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) was right that we should point out that there have been no cuts to the Arts Council’s core cash settlement. In fact, in the spending review, the Government increased that settlement by more than £43 million over the period from April 2022 to March 2025. That means that the Arts Council investment programme will soon be supporting more organisations in more places than ever before, all off the back of our unprecedented cultural recovery fund, which supported around 5,000 organisations and sites during the pandemic, and the ongoing increased rates of creative tax reliefs.

I am grateful for the opportunity to set out how the Government—

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stuart Andrew]

No, I am going to finish.

The Government’s extensive programme of support, through the Arts Council national portfolio organisation programme, is benefiting areas across England, and more of them. The Government’s support for the arts and culture across the country does, of course, stretch beyond national portfolio funding. It also includes our cultural investment fund, creative industries tax reliefs, support for business rate payers, support through the levelling-up fund and the energy bill relief scheme, and that is not to mention our unprecedented support during the pandemic.

I strongly believe that that investment will ensure that our world-class arts and culture continue to thrive into the future and across all parts of the country. I recognise the strong representations made in today’s debate, which I can assure right hon. and hon. Members I will bring to the attention of my noble Friend the Arts Minister.

15:57

[Sir Robert Neill]

I thank all Members who have attended the debate: the Father and Mother of the House and many others. That shows how seriously this is taken, which I hope is something the Minister will take back. This is something people care about strongly.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Robert Neill]

I will give way to my right hon. and learned Friend because I know he wants to say something positive about English National Opera.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am so sorry that I arrived late. I wanted to support my hon. Friend in what he had to say about the English National Opera, which we have discussed. It is so important that we preserve that institution, which has done so much to bring opera to the people.

[Sir Robert Neill]

That is a good message for the Minister to take away. The ENO is in the forefront of making art accessible to people who do not have a traditional background in opera, which I did not when I first took an interest as a young lad living in a semi-detached house in Hornchurch. My journey was not dissimilar to that of the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), in coming to it as an art form.

Opera has enriched my life, and I declare my interest—which I do not think is unknown—as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on opera. That is the message I want the Minister to take away. This is not a fringe matter; it is central to our arts offer in this country. Although I accept that much good work is done by the Arts Council, something has gone badly wrong in this funding round.

There is a legitimate responsibility on Government to intervene when governance, process and consultation do not come up to the standards that we normally expect in a public body. That gives us the chance to put that right and get back on track with an arm’s length body. It is not, I respectfully suggest, a reason to stand back and do nothing. I am sure the Minister will take the strength of feeling in this debate back to his colleagues in the Government and ensure that that gets to the Arts Council itself.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the funding decisions of Arts Council England.

Government Alcohol Strategy 2012

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the 2012 Alcohol Strategy.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Government’s alcohol strategy 2012 was an ambitious attempt to reduce the harms of alcohol. In its introduction, it states:

“alcohol is one of the three biggest lifestyle risk factors for disease and death…It has become acceptable to use alcohol for stress relief, putting many people at real risk of chronic diseases. Society is paying the costs—alcohol-related harm is now estimated to cost society £21 billion annually.”

Despite the ambition, 10 years on, the harms of alcohol have not decreased; they have spiralled. We are at crisis point.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is not just about the fact that alcohol is more used today; it is also about the effect it has on lives. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that 70 people die every day due to alcohol. Deaths from alcohol had already increased prior to the pandemic: between 2001 and 2018, across the UK deaths increased by 13%. In Northern Ireland, deaths rose by 40% between 2012 and 2017—more than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Does he agree that the Government must begin to deal with this in a standalone manner, rather than under the general umbrella of health?

[Dan Carden]

The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. The point of this debate is that the Government had a very good strategy in 2012 and unfortunately failed to deliver on it.

Alcohol is now the leading risk factor for death, ill health and disability among 15 to 49-year-olds. In 10 years, deaths caused by alcoholic liver disease are up by a third, and the estimated cost of alcohol harm is upwards of £27 billion—£6 billion higher than back in 2012. Alcohol-specific deaths have risen by 27% in the last two years alone, and since 2012 there have been more than 66,500 deaths from alcohol across the UK. Alcohol-related hospital admissions in England are upwards of 980,000 annually, and one in five children is living in a household with one parent with an alcohol use disorder.

The wider impact on families and communities is incalculable, but it is often plain to see. The crisis we are facing is the consequence of a decade of inaction. Sir Ian Gilmore, chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance and a great advocate of alcohol policy reform, said:

“The ten years since the last Government UK strategy is a decade of missed opportunities to reduce preventable hospitalisations, deaths, violence, child neglect and antisocial behaviour. A failure to deliver on promised initiatives has contributed to the rising levels of alcohol harm we are seeing today. This cannot continue.”

I want to mention a couple of the milestones of the last decade. In 2011, the Government alcohol strategy was introduced. In 2013, key evidence-based measures in the strategy were scrapped. In 2018, the Government promised another alcohol strategy, which was later scrapped. In 2019, it was announced that alcohol care teams were to be put in hospitals in the top 25% of most-in-need areas; that is still uncertain. In 2021, an alcohol and health calorie labelling consultation was agreed, yet it has still not begun. In 2021, the Government’s health disparities White Paper was due to be published, and yet still no decisions have been taken.

The Government’s record on alcohol policy is one of policies scrapped and promises broken. The Health Foundation’s 2022 review of Government policies tackling smoking, poor diet, physical inactivity and harmful alcohol use in England made for uncomfortable reading. It observed that there are “no national targets” for alcohol and that the Government have a dismal track record in implementing commitments, not only from the 2012 alcohol strategy but beyond. The report delivers a blistering assessment of the many alcohol policy initiatives that have not been introduced, or that are of unclear status or partially implemented.

The measures set out in the 2012 strategy were, and remain, effective, evidence-led health policies that are shown to prevent deaths and alleviate pressures on the NHS. Back then, the Government’s stated outcomes were:

“A change in behaviour so that people think it is not acceptable to drink in ways that could cause harm to themselves or others; a reduction in the amount of alcohol-fuelled violent crime; a reduction in the number of adults drinking above the NHS guidelines; a reduction in the number of people ‘binge drinking’; a reduction in the number of alcohol-related deaths; and a sustained reduction in both the numbers of 11-15 year olds drinking alcohol and the amounts consumed.”

We were told the 2012 strategy would

“radically reshape the approach to alcohol and reduce the number of people drinking to excess”,

through 30 commitments or actions covering various areas. The flagship policies included minimum unit pricing, banning multi-buy alcohol promotions in shops and regulating to ensure that public health is considered as an objective by local authorities when making alcohol licensing decisions. The former Prime Minister, David Cameron, promised that there would be 50,000 fewer crimes each year and 900 fewer alcohol-related deaths a year by the end of the decade.

The only conclusion that I can reach is that the decision to scrap the 2012 strategy is a major factor in alcohol-related crime, which now costs us £11.4 billion each year, and in the fact that deaths from alcohol have reached record levels, because soon after its publication, the Government backtracked on all the flagship policies, despite the evidence. Based on David Cameron’s figures, 9,000 lives would have been saved.

Many of us who care deeply about the impact of alcohol and addiction across society fear that the influence of the alcohol industry on Whitehall and Westminster is to blame. When minimum unit pricing is mentioned, uproar ensues and misinformation spreads—namely, that introducing a minimum unit price would hit the pub trade or punish moderate drinkers. As the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Home Secretary who introduced the strategy, said:

“Most drinks will not be affected by minimum unit pricing, but the cheap vodka, super-strength cider and special brew lagers will go up in price.”

She went on:

“Pubs have nothing to fear from the minimum unit price that is being introduced today. That will not have an impact on them.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 1072-1078.]

The not-so-snappily titled “The Public Health Burden of Alcohol and the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Alcohol Control Policies” states:

“Policies that reduce the affordability of alcohol are the most effective, and cost-effective, approaches to prevention and health improvement.”

The 2012 strategy agrees with that. Minimum unit pricing is no silver bullet, but it is an evidence-based policy that works.

I welcome the alcohol duty reforms that will come into effect in August this year. Alcohol should be taxed according to its strength. That is an effective starting point that makes it possible to use duty reforms to improve public health. The reality of the last decade is that cuts and freezes to alcohol duty have cost the Treasury £8.6 billion since 2012.

Advertising was another key component of the 2012 strategy. In July 2013, “Next steps following the consultation on delivering the Government’s alcohol strategy” promised to challenge and engage with the industry and sellers to promote responsible drinking, and I want to read a little excerpt from the strategy:

“The alcohol industry has a direct and powerful connection and influence on consumer behaviours. We know that people consume more when prices are lower; marketing and advertising affect drinking behaviour; and store layout and product location affect the type and volume of sales.”

The “Next steps” document promised to challenge and engage with the industry and sellers to promote responsible drinking, saying:

“Alcohol offers are too often prominently displayed in shop foyers or at the end of aisles. Some in the industry recognise such promotions, and the high visibility of these within shops, can unduly encourage harmful levels of drinking.”

The strategy cites as one potential example for action the voluntary agreement between retailers and the Government in the Republic of Ireland. There is no evidence of any progress here in the UK, and alcohol marketing is more invasive than ever. Anyone who has set foot in a large supermarket will know that alcohol promotions are unavoidable, whether that is in the foyer, at the end of the aisles or at the checkout. The sales campaign is aggressive, unnecessary and irresponsible. In the Republic of Ireland, thanks to the voluntary agreement, alcohol is reserved to one area, with the exception of smaller stores. Why have Ministers not implemented a voluntary agreement between retailers and Government?

It is worth remembering that, in the same year the alcohol strategy was introduced, this place legislated to cover up cigarettes and hide tobacco products from public view. Last year, I met ASDA and other large supermarkets to discuss online marketing practices and giving customers an opt-out from online marketing. I hope we will see progress in that area.

There are tragic consequences for individuals, their families and communities from the failure of this strategy. It is not just the person drinking who is at risk from alcohol harm; the harms affect us all, and they cause the most damage in the most deprived communities. Nobody chooses to be alcohol-dependent—it is not a life that anyone would aspire to lead. Trauma and poor mental health are often the root cause.

Anyone who has tried to access support in the last 10 years will have faced an underfunded service with staff who are overworked and undervalued. Since 2012, billions of pounds have been hollowed out of drug and alcohol treatment. NHS in-patient detox provision in England is at breaking point. There are seven in-patient detox clinics across the country, with just over 100 beds, supporting a population of 56 million.

I want to share the experience of a father trying to support his daughter, who wishes to remain anonymous. He said:

“I did everything I could to stop her from drinking. I didn’t know where to go, no one seemed to help or care. Her drinking was out of control—she always had mental health difficulties and I know she thought the alcohol would help. I took her to A&E so many times and was told the same thing—‘we have no space for her’. I was broken, I still am. I’m not a doctor or a nurse, I didn’t know how to monitor an alcohol detox. Eventually I raised the funds to go private, she’s on the mend and slowly returning but I’m angry—I’ve worked my entire life, my daughter worked, we paid into the pot. How can there be no NHS beds for my daughter?”

As the Minister knows, alcohol care teams provide specialist expertise and interventions for alcohol-dependent patients and those presenting with acute intoxication or other alcohol-related complications. They are proven to be successful and help reduce avoidable bed days and readmissions. The seven-day-a-week service in the Royal Bolton Hospital saved 2,000 bed days in its first year, and modelling suggests that an alcohol care team in every non-specialist acute hospital would save 254,000 bed days and 78,000 admissions each year by year 3.

I have spent some time with the alcohol care team at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital, and I pay tribute to Dr Lynn Owens and her team for everything they do. In 2019 the Government promised to establish alcohol care teams in the 25% of hospitals with the highest need. Three years have now passed since that promise, and I hope the Minister will update us on the roll-out. Does he agree that alcohol care teams should be in every hospital?

As of December 2020, the Government have begun to replenish the budget for addiction treatment services, but it will take time to recover after a decade of cuts. This new funding forms part of the 10-year drug plan, “From harm to hope”, which adopts all the key recommendations from Dame Carol Black’s independent review of drugs. Dame Carol’s review was groundbreaking. However, the legal and most harmful drug—alcohol—was out of scope. Her review, if implemented properly, will see system change in reducing the harms of drugs. I commend the Government for commissioning the strategy and beginning its implementation, but now I want an independent review of alcohol, and so does Dame Carol Black. I am delighted that she supports that call.

In November, Alcohol Health Alliance UK and I, with the support of 42 cross-party colleagues from both Houses and over 50 leading health organisations, wrote to the Prime Minister calling for an independent review of alcohol that would lead to an alcohol strategy. The focus of that review should be evidence-based interventions to reduce the harms felt across society. There is already strong evidence for the effectiveness of measures to reduce the affordability, promotion and availability of alcohol, such as alcohol taxes and a comprehensive restriction on alcohol advertising. So far, the Government have responded to calls for an independent review by signposting the recent increase in spending on addiction treatment services. Increased funding for treatment is a start, but improved drug and alcohol services are a separate matter from the wider public health measures that we need.

In recent years, we have heard a lot about the action needed to tackle tobacco use, gambling-related harm, the use of illicit drugs and obesity, but we hear little about what is needed to tackle the harms of alcohol. With so little to show from the Government’s excellent 2012 alcohol strategy, is it any wonder that deaths from alcohol across England are about to top 10,000 annually? As the social and economic pressures continue to mount, more and more people will use alcohol to escape their often difficult reality. We cannot afford to wait another 10 years. The time to act is now.

In his foreword to the 2012 alcohol strategy, the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, said:

“the responsibility of being in government isn’t always about doing the popular thing. It’s about doing the right thing.”

I hope the Government will take heed of his words and conduct an independent review of alcohol that informs an alcohol strategy for the future, because it is the right thing to do.

16:17

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for securing the debate and for his thoroughly prepared, thoughtful and considered remarks. In the past, he has spoken about his personal experience of this topic, so I thank him for bringing it to the attention of the Government and, through these proceedings, to the attention of the House.

The hon. Member made reference to the 2012 alcohol strategy, which sought to reduce the harms caused by excessive drinking without disproportionately affecting moderate drinkers. It is important to say that, although not all the measures set out in the strategy were introduced, many have been, including creating more powers to deal with problem premises; doubling the fine for persistent under-age sales; strengthening the mandatory licensing conditions; tightening the law on irresponsible promotions; enabling local councils to collect a late-night levy to contribute to the cost of policing; and introducing new powers to tackle alcohol-related issues, including closure and dispersal powers. All those were in the 2012 strategy, which the hon. welcomed, and they were delivered.

Some measures have not been taken forward, and the hon. Member mentioned some of those. One is minimum unit pricing for alcohol in England, where there was a feeling that the evidence base was not sufficiently strong. Minimum unit pricing was introduced elsewhere, including in Scotland. A report will shortly be published that assesses the impact of the minimum unit price for alcohol in Scotland, and we will study it extremely carefully to find out what lessons can be learned. If there is clear evidence on the effectiveness of minimum unit pricing in Scotland, we stand ready to respond to it. We are open-minded on the question, but we do want to see the evidence.

It is worth setting out some of the facts and figures around alcohol-related problems, because the picture is perhaps not as unrelentingly bleak as may have been suggested. In terms of violent criminality and incidents relating to alcohol, back in 2009-10 the crime survey for England and Wales said there were just over 1 million alcohol-related violent incidents. By 2019-20—just before covid—that number had fallen to 525,000—it had dropped by roughly half from 2009-10 to 2019-20.

The percentage of adults consuming alcohol within the last week stood at 64% in 2009; by 2019 that number had dropped to 54%, so there was a 10 percentage point reduction, from 64% to 54%. Binge drinking—defined as drinking at least twice the recommended limit on a given day—stood at 20% in 2009, which is quite a high proportion, but by 2014 it had dropped to 15%. The proportion of under-18s consuming alcohol and suffering alcohol-related harm has also decreased significantly in the last 20 years. All those things are worth putting on record.

The Office for National Statistics publishes numbers for alcohol-specific deaths. There was a slight decrease from 2008 to 2012, but the numbers were fairly stable; they were pretty much constant through to about 2019. There was then an increase in 2020 and 2021—just in those last two years, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton mentioned—and that is of concern. However, there is a feeling—perhaps more work needs to be done on this—that that was connected with increased alcohol consumption during the covid lockdown by people who were already at risk. We probably need to look at that more carefully. I am looking at the graph now, which is available on the ONS website, and it is striking that the mortality rates are flat over the last eight or nine years until the last two years, when they go up considerably.

I will mention one or two other important initiatives. One relates to the criminal justice system; sadly, having problems with alcohol is one of the things that leads to offending. It is not the principal driver of offending, but it is one of the drivers. Changes brought in recently—a year or two ago—introduced alcohol monitoring and abstinence licence conditions for prison leavers. They became effective just a year or two ago, and since November 2021 over 900 such conditions have been imposed.

Community sentence alcohol abstinence monitoring requirements ban offenders from drinking alcohol for up to 120 days, with tags used to monitor compliance. Over 5,000 orders have been imposed, and offenders have complied with the tag 97% of the time. Those licence conditions and abstinence monitoring requirements are quite significant and are clearly having a positive effect, and we can do more in that area.

The other important area the hon. Member mentioned was treatment, and he rightly made quite a few remarks about it. As he said, the drug strategy was published in December 2021, and it was backed by record funding. The focus of that strategy was on drugs, but the commissioning and delivery of drug and alcohol treatment services are integrated in England. In practical terms, that means that the implementation of the drug strategy and, critically, the funding that goes into treatment will also benefit people seeking alcohol treatment through mechanisms such as the new commissioning standards, the plan to build back the workforce—which the hon. Member also mentioned—and new investment to rebuild local authority-commissioned substance misuse treatment services in England. As I said, those are integrated, so they cover alcohol as well as drugs.

This current year—2022-23—we have made £86 million of funding available to local authorities to invest in treatment and recovery services, with a further £10 million to increase the availability of in-patient detox beds, to help those requiring medically assisted withdrawal. In addition, as part of the NHS long-term plan, we are investing £27 million of national funding in an ambitious programme to establish specialist alcohol care teams in the 25% of hospitals with the highest rates of alcohol harm and socioeconomic deprivation. We think that those fully optimised alcohol care teams can significantly reduce accident and emergency attendances, bed days, readmissions and ambulance call-outs. It is estimated that that NHS programme will prevent 50,000 hospital admissions over five years. As the hon. Member alluded to, there has been a significantly increased focus on treatment in general over the last couple of years.

I am concerned that we should do even more to get people with alcohol problems into treatment, especially where that gets them into criminal offending. In that regard, the three kinds of medical challenges that often present are drug addiction, alcohol addiction and mental health problems. Estimates vary, but somewhere in the region of 50% of offenders, or possibly more, have one or more of those challenges. However, only about 2% or 3% of sentences, or maybe less, contain community treatment requirements, which might be a drug treatment requirement, an alcohol treatment requirement or a mental health treatment requirement. There is a huge opportunity to work with the Crown Prosecution Service, the probation service, which prepares pre-sentence reports, and the judiciary to get a lot more people referred into mental health, drug or alcohol treatment as an alternative.

[Dan Carden]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has covered every part of government and society, from the health service to criminal justice. I think alcohol takes up around half of all police time. What I am asking for is a strategy and an independent review. The Government have taken their eye off the ball over the last 12 years. They published the strategy, but it was never fully implemented. What we need is something that looks across Government at alcohol, in the way Dame Carol was able to do with illicit drugs. Our constituents know that this is a problem up and down the country. It costs society tens of billions of pounds, and the money that the alcohol industry pays in taxes does not cover the cost of alcohol harm.

[Chris Philp]

I am not going to make a commitment in this debate to initiate a review, for reasons that the hon. Member will understand, but I will give the issue some consideration and careful thought since he raised it.

In concluding, I reiterate that there has been a significant increase in investment in drug and alcohol treatment in the last one or two years. We have the new alcohol abstinence monitoring provisions in place, and we have seen the consumption of alcohol decline. We have also seen the number of alcohol-related violent incidents halve over the last 10 years or so, and much of the 2012 strategy has been implemented, so there is a lot to be pleased about. I will give some thought to the suggestion the hon. Member made, and I will of course happy to work with him going forward, given his obvious expertise and interest in this area.

Question put and agreed to.

Antimicrobial Resistance: Farm Animals

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of antibiotics on healthy farm animals and antimicrobial resistance.

It is a great honour and pleasure to be here this afternoon and to see you in the Chair, Mr Bone.

Antimicrobial resistance, or AMR as it is more commonly known, should be of grave concern to us all because it affects every single one of our constituents up and down the country. As we emerge from the shadow of the covid-19 pandemic, this looming health catastrophe must be treated with greater urgency. We are on the edge of yet another global human health crisis, described by the United Nations Environment Programme as a “silent pandemic”, except we will be able to vaccine our way out of this one. Worldwide, more than a million people a year are already dying from infections that cannot be treated with antibiotics. Our food system is broken, and this is the hidden public health cost of intensive factory farming.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. The use of antibiotics in factory-farmed animals as a method of disease prevention to compensate for poor living conditions is a huge contributing factor to widespread antimicrobial resistance. The EU introduced legislation to tackle this. Does the hon. Member agree that Ministers must urgently act on their 2018 commitment to restrict preventive antibiotic use?

[Mr Sharma]

I thank the hon. Member for her positive intervention. I am sure the Minister will note it, and I will also be raising that issue later in my speech.

One of the root causes of AMR is the overuse of antibiotics on cruel factory farms. Factory farming inflicts unspeakable cruelty on billions of animals in the UK every year. It confines them to horrendous conditions often with barely enough room to turn around or lie down. This highly stressful and often barren environment can lead to injuries and severe behavioural issues, including aggression, tail biting in pigs, feather pecking and even cannibalism. The cruelty does not end there. Factory farming subjects animals to painful mutilations, such as tail docking and teeth clipping, without effective pain relief. This is not farming; it is industrialised animal cruelty. Colleagues will not be surprised to hear that these stressful, cramped and unsanitary conditions create the perfect breeding ground for disease. That brings me to my next point: the overuse of antibiotics.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow, because I will obviously get my say in a moment. I am sure that he does not want to slander a whole industry of farmers who take animal welfare very seriously. These are people who get out of bed very early in the morning to look after and care for their animals on a daily basis. People cannot do that unless they love and respect animals. I know that he does not mean to slander a whole industry, but I thought he might want to take a moment to reflect on some of his language and acknowledge that there are farmers up and down this country who care deeply for the welfare of their animals and who look after them in a special way.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I would like to point out that you can have a go back at the Minister when it is his turn.

[Mr Sharma]

I am glad that the Minister found it necessary to intervene at this stage. I am not offended in any way, shape or form, but these are not just my views, but those of campaigners and experts in the field who have witnessed it and done the reports. We differ at this stage, but later in my speech he might change his mind and come back on a more positive note.

Antibiotics are routinely given to healthy farm animals to compensate for the cruel and frankly inhumane conditions they are kept in to prevent those animals from becoming sick. Antibiotics are being used to prop up this cruel system of suffering. Without antibiotics, these animals would simply not be able to survive these appalling conditions.

An estimated 75% of antibiotics used on UK farms are for group treatments. When used routinely, they are intended to compensate for poor hygiene and inadequate animal husbandry, and that happens despite the industry’s reduction of antibiotics used by 50% in recent years. Pigs, cows, chickens and dairy cows on factory farms are given antibiotics through their food and water on a regular basis. I ask colleagues this: if we will not take antibiotics when we are not sick, why would we administer them to healthy animals?

The problem is not confined to animal health. Right now we are seeing a rise in antibiotic resistance in animals, which is contributing to antibiotic resistance in humans. Last November I was delighted to host a reception on behalf of World Animal Protection and the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics for the launch of their report, “Life-threatening superbugs: how factory farm pollution risks human health.” The study—the first of its kind in the UK—tested waterways and slurry run-off in areas of the Wye Valley, Suffolk and Norfolk near to both factory farms and higher-welfare outdoor farms for antibiotic residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Antimicrobial resistance was found in rivers and waterways in areas with high levels of factory farming. Add to that the alarming news that livestock farms in England polluted rivers 300 times last year and the urgency becomes clear.

The key findings showed that resistance was found in these waterways to the antibiotic cefotaxime, which is used to treat sepsis and meningitis, and vancomycin—I am sure that the Minister will agree I am not a scientist, nor in the medical profession, so my pronunciation may be different but the meaning is right—which is used to treat MRSA. It is alarming that both are classified by the World Health Organisation as the highest priority, critically important antimicrobials in human medicine yet far too little is being done to halt resistance to this AMR in our environment.

None of the areas near the four higher-welfare outdoor pig or chicken farms tested had higher levels of any type of resistance downstream than was found upstream, which means that no evidence was found that the higher-welfare farms are contributing AMR to superbugs in the environment. On the other hand, five of the eight intensive farms had more of at least one type of resistance downstream than upstream. The link between the overuse of antibiotics on cruel factory farms, river pollution, AMR and the threat to human health should be a warning to us all. We must follow the signs before we sleepwalk into another health emergency.

In 2022 World Animal Protection also conducted research into the presence of antimicrobial resistant enterococci in fresh pork samples sold in UK supermarkets. Now, that is a scary thought: AMR readily available on the shelves. The study looked at the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance depending on pork production method, including UK minimum legal standard farming, higher-welfare indoor farming and high-welfare outdoor organic farming. When the bacteria were found, they were then tested for susceptibility to different antibiotics—in other words, whether antibiotics were effective in killing them or slowing their growth. The result of the study indicated a potential trend: a higher AMR burden with more intensive production methods, and a lower AMR burden with higher-welfare production methods. That demonstrates a worrying link between the overuse of antibiotics on low-welfare factory farms, the food that we are consuming and the AMR to which we are exposed.

It is true that the UK has made progress in reducing its farm antibiotic use by 55% since 2014; that was prompted primarily by the threat of stricter EU regulations. However, reductions have stagnated since 2018, and much greater reductions are still achievable and desperately needed to safeguard human health. The remaining antibiotics still used on farms are predominantly routine group treatments that prop up poor welfare practices such as overcrowding, routine mutilations and early weaning. Before the EU brought in a ban, an estimated 75% of antibiotics used on UK farms were administered to groups of animals through feed or water, rather than by targeting individual animals displaying signs of illness. If we compare that with just 10% used for group treatments in Sweden and 20% in Norway, we quickly see that we have lost our position as world leader on this issue.

Industry-led measures have made a start in reducing antibiotic use on farms, but they have fundamentally failed to establish responsible and safe antibiotic use levels and how to achieve them. They have set out targets for what could be achieved without substantially raising welfare standards or changing farming methods. Now, we must push beyond this and raise welfare standards in order to create a truly sustainable food system.

Our European neighbours have already acted to curb this health risk fuelled by inhumane farming. In January 2022, the EU introduced new laws banning all forms of routine antibiotic use in farming and all preventive antibiotic treatments of groups of animals. Furthermore, EU legislation states that antibiotics can no longer be used to compensate for poor hygiene, inadequate husbandry or lack of care, or to compensate for poor farm management. The UK was a member of the EU when that legislation was agreed, and it is only right that it should be adopted into UK law. We should also consider the future ramifications for our trade with the EU should we not introduce the legislation as it continues to sail past us in reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.

I come now to the central question of this debate: when do the Government intend to introduce a ban on the routine use of antibiotics in healthy farm animals? In 2018, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), stated that the UK Government planned to implement restrictions on the preventive use of antibiotics in line with the EU’s proposals. That was over four years ago, and the practice has now been illegal in the EU for just under a year. In 2019, the Conservative party’s manifesto committed to solving antibiotic resistance. However, there has still been no action.

The promised public consultation on new UK veterinary medicines regulation has been repeatedly delayed, and no new restrictions on preventive antibiotics use have been introduced. If no action is taken, it is estimated that more deaths will be attributed to AMR by 2050 than current deaths from cancer. That will be the true cost to human life. The health and wellbeing of animals, people and our planet are deeply connected. The United Nations recognises that antibiotics are used to mask poor conditions for farm animals and calls for investment in sustainable agricultural food systems. Farm animals kept in conditions where they can lead good lives do not need to be routinely given antibiotics. I ask the Minister today whether this Government will commit to a ban on the overuse of antibiotics.

16:45

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for securing this important debate and for laying out the situation. In the light of the pandemic, the protection of both people and animals is more important than ever, and yet serious risks are being posed by the use of antimicrobial agents leading to antibiotic resistance. The World Health Organisation described it as a serious threat that is no longer merely a prediction for the future; it is happening right now in every part of the world. That highlights the urgent nature of this matter.

In Scotland, biosecurity practices are routinely adopted as part of farm management strategies to help reduce the burden of endemic disease in Scottish livestock. Biosecurity measures are a large part of any herd or flock health plan. Responsible use of antibiotics, only when necessary, will help to reduce the spread of antibiotic resistance A co-ordinated cross-sectoral response is required to address the threat from antimicrobial resistance. The Scottish Government continue to work in co-operation with DEFRA and the UK Government across such areas, ensuring agriculture regulations within a reserved context retain the high standards we are all accustomed to.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Antibiotic-resistant germs can end up in the food that humans eat and lead to illnesses such as food poisoning. That illustrates the importance of food standards, which are high in the UK. Does the hon. Member agree that the regulations that follow today’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill must be airtight to prevent a reduction in standards?

[Steven Bonnar]

My hon. Friend makes some excellent point, and I am sure the Minister will be listening. She always speaks with authority on such matters.

Scotland’s food and drink sector continues to be successful, as we collectively follow the science in determining what is best for animals and, of course, safe for human consumption. Scotland and the rest of the UK’s agriculture sector has some of the very highest standards in the world, and we are rightly proud of them. However, these gains are being sacrificed in trade deals with countries with lower standards and requirements. Total farm antibiotic use is five times higher in the United States and Canada than here, 16 times higher in Australian poultry, and triple in Australian pigs what the UK would allow.

The UK falls behind the EU, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall, mentioned earlier, in vital areas. Regulations covering antibiotic use on farm animals were tightened across the European Union in February 2022, but due to Brexit and the UK Government’s intention to deregulate—my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West mentioned the Bill before the House today—the UK has not followed suit. UK Ministers have also previously refused to commit to an outright ban on preventive use.

In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson for the Government’s Veterinary Medicines Directorate said it would set out proposed regulatory changes as part of a public consultation during 2022, but they have not to this day responded to queries about whether the directorate would propose a ban. It remains legal in the UK to give antibiotics to farm animals routinely, rather than when they are sick or have an infection, and also to import animal foods produced with antibiotic growth promoters. The then Scottish Trade Minister, Ivan McKee MSP, called on the UK Government to seek action on AMR in all future trade agreements after the UK failed to do so when it struck its trade deal with Japan. The EU has also required similar acknowledgement as part of previous trade deals; it was successful in getting Australia to acknowledge the risk of AMR.

It is vital that the UK Government tackle antimicrobial resistance not only domestically but internationally through diplomacy and trade negotiations. If Scotland can take such action to protect our own farm animals through our very limited powers, then why can the UK Government not do so with the powers that they have? If they cannot, then why not provide the people of Scotland with the full authority to manage all our affairs?

16:50

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing the debate and on his comprehensive introduction. No one wants antibiotics to be used when they are not necessary, whether in animals or humans, and he made his case powerfully.

As I represent Cambridge, it is not surprising that I have been briefed on a number of occasions by clinicians and scientists about the risks of antimicrobial resistance. The issue was brought to my attention soon after I was elected in 2015, long before I took on responsibilities relating to farmed animal health, so I have taken a close interest. I am grateful for excellent briefings from a wide range of organisations, including the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics, the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers Union, the National Office of Animal Health, MSD Animal Health, World Animal Protection and Compassion in World Farming, among others. There is considerable interest and expertise.

There is no doubt about it: antimicrobial resistance is a challenge that affects the whole world, with—as we have heard—an estimated 4.95 million people losing their lives because of an antibiotic-resistant infection in 2019. According to research published in The Lancet last November, 1.27 million of those deaths were attributed to the antibiotic resistance of the infection. I suspect that many of us are familiar with the 2014 review, chaired by Jim O’Neill, which warned that annual deaths due to antimicrobial resistance could rise to 10 million by 2050.

Consequently, it comes as no surprise that the World Health Organisation deems antibiotic resistance to be one of the biggest threats to global health, food security and development. I do not think anyone is under any illusion about the scale of the problem that we face, its risk to human health and how important it is that we reduce our use of antibiotics. In recent years, we have rightly seen considerable efforts made to reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics in both humans and animals.

Since 2014, annual sales of veterinary antibiotics in the UK have reduced by 55%, with the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance—RUMA—playing an important role. That achievement was commended by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation in a report published last year, which said:

“The United Kingdom’s example demonstrates that building trusted relationships across all stakeholders, including between farmers, vets, and government, can lead to sustained behaviour change, and embed practices of responsible use across farming sectors. Industry leadership on the issue has empowered producers to take action. Farmers now have open conversations with their peers on the importance of addressing AMR, and the steps which can be taken in their respective areas.”

That reference to industry leadership and building relationships across all stakeholders is critical, as it is for so many areas in the food and farming sectors. There are many tensions within our food system today, some of which are understandably a result of the need to maximise output to feed a growing global population.

As we have rightly better understood the consequences, we are now trying to find a balance between that output and the environmental, health and animal welfare issues that are so important. Although progress has been made, we still face major challenges. For example, the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics advises that 75% of antibiotics used in UK farms are for group treatments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall pointed out. That stands in contrast to other countries that manage to use antibiotics only to treat individual sick animals. Sweden and Finland are cited as examples. Although exact comparisons are difficult, we should always aspire to the highest standards here. We also heard in the introduction that some farms still use antibiotics in a routine way when others do not. The fear is that in some cases that is compensating for poor husbandry. Again, we should aim higher.

Let me ask the Minister about the Government’s antimicrobial resistance national action plan in which it was stated, as we have already heard, that the UK would implement legislation along lines similar to those being adopted by the European Union. Is that still the plan? If so, when? Why are we yet again falling behind the EU? This is the second time in this Chamber today that the Minister will have to explain why the Government have relegated the UK to the slow lane. What assessment has been made of the consequences for British farmers who export to the EU? What can the Minister tell us about ensuring in trade deals that we do not risk importing food produced to lower standards on antibiotic usage?

A key to reducing the use of antibiotics is, of course, vaccination. I am grateful to the National Office of Animal Health, which issued livestock vaccination guidelines last May to help vets and farmers to improve resilience, for its advice. Will the Minister tell us what support the Department is giving to vaccine development?

In conclusion, this is a short debate on a subject that merits much more detailed discussion. Overuse of antibiotics in general, and certainly in farming in the past, has clearly put us at risk from rising antimicrobial resistance. The falling use of antibiotics indicates that we are moving in the right direction, but there is more to do. As we transform and improve our farming systems to address wider environmental and health challenges, I am in no doubt that moving away from antibiotic use will play a key role in improving and safeguarding our health as well as the health of animals stewarded by farmers and vets.

16:56

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and congratulate him on calling the debate.

The Government recognise antimicrobial resistance or AMR as a policy issue of huge importance and public interest. It is right and proper that there is scrutiny of the matters we have discussed today. Antimicrobial resistance is one of the greatest public health threats that we face. A landmark study published last year, the Global Research of Antimicrobial Resistance report, reported that more than 1 million human deaths worldwide could be directly attributed to antibiotic resistance in 2019. That was the lower estimate. The report indicated that the figure could be as high as 5 million deaths globally, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall indicated in his speech.

Antibiotics are the cornerstone of human medicine. Without them, things we take for granted, such as routine surgery, would become life-threatening. Bacteria cause disease in animals, too, and veterinary medicine, like human medicine, needs to be able to rely on access to antibiotics that work. Not only do animal health and welfare depend on it, so in turn do the food systems that we depend on. It is vital that we protect those medicines for future generations.

To start, I would like to talk about how the Government are tackling antimicrobial resistance and what the UK strategy is. We know that AMR will not be an easy problem to overcome. In 2019, we put in place long-term plans to address AMR and published our UK 20-year vision to contain and control AMR by 2040. That strategic vision is supported by our current five-year national action plan for AMR, which runs from 2019 to 2024. That plan is progressing well, and I will come shortly to some of its highlights.

Meanwhile, we are already developing the next five-year national action plan. Both the vision and the national action plan were developed across Government Departments and their agencies along with the Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, supported by a range of stakeholders. Our 20-year vision lays out the UK’s ambitions to create a world where AMR is contained, controlled and mitigated. In it, we have outlined our ambitions for lowering the burden of infections, our plans to optimise the use of antimicrobials across all sectors, and our aims to support the development of new therapies, diagnostics, vaccines and interventions.

We are taking a local, national and global approach. We are tackling AMR in people, animals, food and the environment, which is the One Health approach. The UK’s five-year national action plan takes those ambitions and breaks them down into actions for the UK over the short term. One key ambition of the national action plan is to reduce the use of antibiotics in the UK farming sector.

Let us talk about reducing use in animals. In the UK, the livestock industry is responsible for the health and welfare of more than 1 billion farmed animals in its care each year and for the production of safe, high-quality food. Across the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we have been working collaboratively for many years with the veterinary and livestock sectors to promote responsible antibiotic use. UK agriculture has undergone a transformation over the last few years, as livestock sectors have embedded the principles of responsible antimicrobial use in their farming practices. That transformation has led to a clear understanding from all stakeholders of the importance of preserving antimicrobial efficiency and the responsibility that we all have to protect those essential medicines.

Due to the strong working relationship that we have with our vets and farmers, the UK has taken a different approach to other countries in reducing the use of antibiotics in animals, one that has been praised globally. We have engaged with the different sectors and collectively driven a culture change of responsible antibiotic use within food-producing animals. That has led to a 55% decrease in use since 2014, making the UK one of the lowest users of veterinary antibiotics across Europe. In particular, RUMA is establishing and chairing a targets taskforce for vets and farmers. It was pivotal in the industry taking ownership and driving forward that change.

Those industries have worked to protect antibiotics that are important for human use, reducing the use of those critical medicines in animals by 83% since 2014. Of course, the purpose of reducing antibiotic use is to reduce bacterial resistance to antibiotics. At the same time as reducing use, we have been monitoring antibiotic-resistant trends in bacteria in healthy livestock since 2015.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

This is an issue that I have followed for quite some time, and I would like to pin the Minister down on it. Does he think that there is a problem with the routine overuse of antibiotics in farming? Does he think that current levels need to come down significantly, and does he think that it is in any way connected with industrialised factory farming?

[Mark Spencer]

We should be absolutely clear that the reduction in antibiotic use has been demonstrated. There has been huge engagement with the sector.

[Kerry McCarthy]

But is it still too high?

[Mark Spencer]

Of course, we could always reduce it further. But at the same time, we have to balance that with animal welfare and ensuring that no animal is affected detrimentally. No farmer in this country can administer antibiotics to an animal without a veterinary prescription. It requires a professional vet to prescribe that medicine for an animal. I have huge confidence in our veterinary service, and their professionalism and ability to make those decisions.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I think the Minister will agree that I have been uncharacteristically generous to him this afternoon. Let me press him on the point of group usage. Is that something that he thinks we should continue, or are there plans to change that?

[Mark Spencer]

I do not like blanket, overarching rules. There may well be a circumstance where a flock of birds or a group of animals are suffering from an infection and need to be treated. To rule out the use of group therapy when there is a group of animals that need veterinary intervention would be very silly. Of course, we want to ensure we target medicines at poorly animals, and that we use antibiotics to treat those animals. But to have a block rule where we rule out the use of a medicine to a group of animals that are suffering from an infection would be silly.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The Minister seems to be saying that vets issue prescriptions only when there is a proven need to deal with an infection or disease outbreak. However, we know prescriptions have been issued to prevent disease outbreaks. Does he not think that is a problem? It goes back to the issue of routine use as a preventative measure rather than to treat disease. The Minister seems to be saying that prescriptions are not issued for that purpose, but I am pretty sure that they are.

[Mark Spencer]

I did not say that. To be clear, what I said was that I trust the professional reputation and professionalism of our veterinary services, and that where a veterinary officer is concerned that an animal may well become infected in the near future, it seems reasonable that they could come to a professional decision that that animal is better off receiving preventative medicine to stop it becoming infected and to keep it healthy. We rely on the professionalism of our veterinary service, which is one of the best in the world.

The UK’s success to date has been achieved without specific legislation. However, we are in the process of updating our laws regulating veterinary medicines and that gives us an opportunity to embed into law some of the excellent core principles of antimicrobial stewardship, which vets and famers are already promoting through a culture of responsible use.

To support the progress made in recent years and to lay the foundation for ongoing reductions in the unnecessary use of antibiotics in animals, we are seeking to strengthen our national law in this area. We will soon be publishing a consultation on the Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s proposed changes to the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013. The consultation will include proposals to stop the use of antibiotics to prevent disease in animals in all but exceptional cases, where the risks to animal health are high and the consequences likely to be severe, which was the point I made to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).

Our proposals bear similarities to recently updated EU legislation on veterinary medicines. However, our proposals also take into consideration the fact that we use significantly lower levels of antibiotics than most other European countries. We have already developed a culture of responsible use across the veterinary and livestock sectors. We will keep working with the farming sector to prevent animal diseases through vaccination, biosecurity and good husbandry, and through that we will further reduce unnecessary antibiotic use and underpin the availability of safe and sustainable food.

It is worth putting on record that when we compare ourselves with our European colleagues, we have a much lower use of antibiotics. We have lower use than France, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Romania, Croatia, Greece, Malta, Bulgaria, Portugal—I can keep going with a whole list of countries where we are performing better than our European colleagues—but that does not mean that we cannot continue to push in the right direction.

AMR is not just a UK issue, but a global problem. The UK is a strong voice on the international stage as an engaged global partner on AMR. We have led the way for many years. In 2016, the global-facing independent AMR review, chaired by Lord O’Neill, catalysed a wave of political and public momentum to address the issue.

Recently, in 2021, under the UK’s G7 presidency, we made commitments to better understand supply chains and improve resilience, investigate market incentives and novel valuation strategies for antimicrobials, and adopt standards for manufacturing of antimicrobials to reduce environmental pollution. The UK played a significant role in updating the international guidance to the Codex standards on AMR. Those standards ensure that food is safely traded across the world. We must tackle the threat head-on and galvanise countries across the globe to do the same. AMR is not only has a monumental health impact, but harms our economies and global security.

To conclude, the human population is predicted to reach 9.8 billion by 2050 and livestock products play an important role in feeding the world’s population. The goal must be to produce food in the most sustainable way, minimising environmental impacts while respecting animal welfare. Food systems will need to adapt and take account of the need to reduce disease pressures and the need for antibiotics. Preventing animal disease through vaccination, improved biosecurity and good husbandry will increase the availability of safe and sustainable food.

The UK’s sectoral approach successfully harnessed the power of the livestock industry to set its own targets and address the challenge of the food system as a whole. Producers’ deeper understanding of their own sectors will enable them to plan more effectively for the future and consider how they can produce food in the most sustainable way.

In the UK, we have shown that by having shared Government and industry goals we reduce the use of antibiotics. Real, sustainable change can be delivered and I am confident that our new legislation will further empower farmers and vets to continue to work together.

[Mr Sharma]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I was looking at the time and thought that he was going to sum up. Before he does, I just wondered whether he could confirm, in clear words, that the Government will follow through on a ban on the overuse of antibiotics and ensure that there is no future for factory farming? Will he give the Government’s exact position?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I set out, we are about to consult on these matters. We have made huge progress in the right direction.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman deliberately tried to trigger me with his use of the term “factory farming”, so I hesitate to push back too robustly. However, I will say to him that farmers up and down this country genuinely love the animals that they care for. The level of animal welfare in this country is equal to that in any country in the world. I think UK farmers will take offence at some of the phrases that he has used today. Maybe that highlights that as an industry and as a sector we have not been as good at connecting with our consumers as we should have been, so there are many consumers out there who are not aware of the work that takes place on UK farms and the high welfare standards that exist on them.

As a DEFRA Minister, I am enormously proud of the work that the sector does up and down this country in looking after the welfare of its animals and making sure they are cared for, well fed and the healthiest they can be. The UK Government will be there with them and working with them on this journey, alongside vets, farmers and consumers, to make sure that we tackle the challenges that we face.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I call Mr Virendra Sharma to wind up the debate.

17:12

[Mr Sharma]

Thank you, Mr Bone, for letting me have a few more minutes in which to speak.

Before I say thank you and sum up, I assure the Minister that we have no intention of criticising the majority of the farmers. They are genuine, honest, decent farmers. I come from a farming background—my family back in India were farmers—so I understand the role of farmers and their approach. I mean no offence to them. However, there is a tiny minority of farmers about whom we have evidence from the organisations that produced the reports referred to today, so we know that there is an element in the farming community that behaves in the way I mentioned. It was not an attack on the credentials or credibility of most farmers. I wanted to make sure that was clear.

I very much thank all Members who have participated in this important debate today. The cruelty that millions of animals trapped in inhumane factory farms are exposed to every day in the UK is inexcusable in a country that prides itself on animal welfare. The overuse of antibiotics to compensate for appalling farming conditions is leading to antimicrobial resistance, or AMR, in both animal and human health.

The United Nations Environment Programme has described the spread of antibiotic resistance as a pandemic hiding in plain sight. Quite simply, we are sitting on a ticking timebomb. The health and wellbeing of animals, people and our planet are interdependent. Poor animal health and welfare in factory farming negatively affect food safety and our environment. Ending factory farming will help to curb the rise of AMR in farm animals and conserve the lifesaving medical interventions we rely on today. It will prevent millions of deaths and lead to improved animal welfare standards.

It is disappointing that the Minister has not committed in today’s debate to a ban on the overuse of antibiotics, despite compelling and concerning arguments that the overuse of antibiotics impacts not only his constituents but every constituent in this country. I urge him and the Government to reconsider their position, to follow through on a ban on the overuse of antibiotics and to ensure that there is no future for factory farming.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the use of antibiotics on healthy farm animals and antimicrobial resistance.

17:15

Sitting adjourned.